System and methods for patent evaluation

ABSTRACT

A system, methods, computer program product, a web site and an Artificial Intelligence system for evaluating a patent document have been provided. According to the methods for patent evaluation of the embodiments of the invention, the patent document is characterized by a number of patent indices arranged into a hierarchy, each index reflecting a different aspect of the patent document. The indices are combined into a Patent Quality index, which is an integral characteristic of the patent document, according to a non-linear scale, which preferably satisfies certain predetermined rules derived from the best practices of qualified experts. In one of the embodiments, a bias associated with an expert, influencing the evaluation of a patent has been taken into account. A corresponding method for determining a monetary value of the patent document is also described. The system for patent evaluation comprises a Patent Quality and Monetary Value processing unit for implementing one of the methods, and respective input and output data means, including a friendly graphical user interface. The system is implemented to be accessible via a network. A corresponding web site having a link, causing a computer program associated with the web site, which performs one of the methods, to execute and to display the results of the execution on a screen, is described. An Artificial Intelligence (AI) system for analyzing and interpreting patent indices and a Visualization unit for color-coded visualization of the results of evaluation are also provided.

RELATED APPLICATIONS

This patent application is related to the US patent applications toWilliams, Allan entitled SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PATENT EVALUATION USINGARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE” and “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PATENT EVALUATIONAND VISUALIZATION OF THE RESULTS THEREOF” filed concurrently herewithand incorporated herein by reference.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The invention relates to evaluation of patent documents, and inparticular, to a system and methods for patent quality and monetaryvalue evaluation.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Patents play an important role in the industrial progress, providinginformation about innovations to the society and stimulatingdevelopments of further improvements. Increasing number of patentapplications is being filed in Patent Offices around the world eachyear, exceeding 300,000 applications in the United States Patent andTrademark Office (USPTO) in year 2001 alone. New areas for patentinginnovations become available, including software inventions, businessmethods related inventions and certain types of life forms. Triggered byenormous growth of the patent system, the exploitation of patents andother activities involving patents are also growing tremendously. Eachyear larger numbers of patents are being licensed and cross-licensed,involved in infringement and/or validity studies, used in advancedresearch and development programs, reached the stage of manufacturing,taken into account in mergers, acquisitions and venture capitalfinancing. In all of the above-mentioned activities, there is an urgentneed for accurate and consistent evaluation of the patents involved.

Usually, patent evaluations are based solely on opinions of experts incertain technology areas, being sometimes enhanced by second opinionsprovided by lawyers, accountants or other professionals. No wonder thatthe evaluation of the same patent may vary significantly depending onqualifications of the experts and their own evaluation criteria. Inaddition, experts' opinions I may be biased, and since different expertsmay have different levels of bias, the consistency of patent evaluationmay suffer to the point of rendering the evaluation project nearlyuseless. Clearly, such an approach is not practical for evaluatingpatent documents, especially when large quantities of patents areinvolved.

A few methods of patents evaluation have been proposed recently as willbe discussed below. All of them are based on the idea of collectingsuitable information about a patent under evaluation and transforming itinto a monetary value of the patent. This idea is too broad to bedirectly applied to the patent evaluation without providing furtherdetails, which is not an easy task to do. One of the problems is thatamount of information that can be collected about an average patent islarge. It is not unusual to come across a patent of 200 pages long withdozens of claims. It is not immediately clear how many parameters arerequired to properly characterize a patent, and what are thoseparameters. However, the choice of parameters has a profound effect onthe validity and quality of the patent evaluation. The improper choiceof patent parameters may render the method of evaluation useless at bestand disastrous at worst, especially if substantial amount of money isinvolved. Another problem is that there is no shortage of variants totransform the chosen parameters into a monetary value of a patent.Different combinations typically yield different monetary values of thepatent, and it is not immediately clear which combination represents atrue value or close to it. However, there is no doubt that an improper,let alone arbitrary, combination of the chosen parameters may result indisastrous consequences as far as money are concerned.

Unfortunately, most of the proposed methods of patent evaluation fail atthe very beginning of the evaluation process when deciding on a set ofparameters to characterize a patent. Certainly, it is not easy to chosea correct choice of evaluation parameters, however, throwing into themix everything that we can get, apparently with little or noconsideration given to the parameter's relevancy, is not likely toproduce a trustworthy evaluation.

Consider, for example, a patent application WO 00/75851 to Neifeld,filed May 4, 2000 entitled “System and Method for Valuing Patents” andtwo papers to the same author entitled “A Macro-Economic Model ProvidingPatent Valuation and Patent Based Company Financial Indicators” and“Patent Valuation from practical View Point, and Some Interesting PatentValue Statistics from the PatentValuePredictor Model”, which can befound at http://www.neifeld.com/advart7.html andhttp://www.neifeld.com/valuearticle_(—)040311.htm respectively. The mainidea of these references is that a gross domestic product (GDP) isgenerated solely due to patents, and therefore the price of a patent canbe calculated as a certain fraction of GDP. Unfortunately, while tryingto apply a macro-economic model to patent evaluation and to make theevaluation completely automated without the involvement of experts, theauthor goes as far as offers to characterize a patent under evaluationby a number of characters in specification, a number of characters inthe shortest independent claim, a number of words, lines and paragraphs,a two dimensional area each claim occupies on paper, a two dimensionalarea each claim occupies on electronic monitor, a number of charactersin formulae and equations etc. The presumption is, as we hesitatinglyunderstand it, that a formula containing more characters is morevaluable for a patent than the formula containing fewer characters,which makes a choice of such parameters and the overall evaluationquestionable.

Another example is the patent evaluation method developed by PatentRatings, LLC, which is described in the U.S. Pat. No. 6,556,992 toBarney, issued Apr. 29, 2003, in a paper “A Study of Patent MortalityRates: Using Statistical Survival Analysis to Rate and Value PatentAssets” to J. A. Barney published in AIPLA Quarterly Journal, Summer2002, vol. 30, no 3, p. 317, and at the Patent Ratings website athttp://www.patentratings.com. It discloses a computerized statisticallybased method of patent evaluation, in which a relative rating of apatent is generated by comparing characteristics of the patent withstatistical distribution of the same characteristic within a givenpatent population, e.g. by comparing patent mortality rates, i.e.looking at patent metrics determined as statistically correlated to thepayment of patent maintenance fees. The specific patent metricsmentioned in this method may include a number of words per claim, anumber of different words per claim, word density (e.g.,different-words/total-words), length of patent specification, frequencyor infrequency of certain word usage. Each word and/or word phrase in apatent claim (and/or patent specification) could be assigned a pointvalue according to its frequency of use. The total point score for aclaim is taken as an indication of the relative breadth or narrowness ofthe claim. As in the case of the previously discussed method, there isno need to understand the meaning of the words in the claims, or in thepatent specification for the patent evaluation purposes, which raisescertain questions of validity of such evaluation.

The method of patent evaluation disclosed in the U.S. Pat. No. 6,665,656to Carter issued Dec. 16, 2003 proposes to compare a target patentdocument with search results based on the search criteria obtained fromthe target document, including the step of evaluation of the targetpatent document according to an empirical formula, which includes anumber of patent parameters. A set of more than 16 parameters isselected from the citation distribution, present date, market royaltybase for the invention, patent committee corporate rank of value ofpatent et al, though users are encouraged to add more parameters oftheir choice. The set is an eclectic mixture of patent parameters, whichare very different in nature and therefore should be treateddifferently, while in the proposed method all parameters are treated andprocessed substantially similarly. It looks like the author, beingconcerned with complete automation of patent evaluation, offers tocollect whatever computer readable information is available about thepatent under consideration and to process this informationautomatically, sometimes disregarding incompatibility between thecollected data.

The U.S. Pat. No. 5,999,907 to Donner issued Dec. 7, 1999 proposes amethod of patent evaluation, which is similar to the approach used inreal estate, where the patent under evaluation is compared withpreviously sold patents having similar formal characteristics selectedso that to be processed by a computer.

Another attempt to provide patent evaluations has been proposed by theQueen's University School of Business, Canada, which is described in thepaper to Herman A. van den Berg entitled “Models of Intellectual CapitalValuation: A Comparative Evaluation” and available athttp://business.queensu.ca/kbe/consortium/Models %20of %20IC%20Valuation.pdf. The author provides a review of various accountingmethods for evaluating intangible assets, with concentration on thepatent citations index, wherein it is assumed that patents that arecited more often presumably have higher value.

One more method for evaluating intellectual property assets has beendeveloped at the Shyamprasad Institute for Social Services, Hyderabad,India, which is described in the paper entitled “Analytical Method forEvaluation of IPRs” available athttp://www.sisshyd.net/siss/docs/analytical %20method.pdf. In thismethod the value of the intellectual property rights (IPR) is determinedas a function of the value contributed by the inventor, and the value ofthe prior art, which in turn depends on the value of traditionalknowledge and resources, and contribution of prior researchers. Thoughit makes it difficult to assign meaningful values to such broadlyintroduced characteristics, the author further suggests to classifyinventions into three categories, namely “minor inventions” which addonly a small incremental value to the existing body of knowledge,“normal inventions” which add moderate amount of value to the existingbody of knowledge, and “path breaking inventions” which transform thesociety and add value in exponential fashion. As a result, the value ofthe invention under consideration is determined as a function of thetraditional knowledge and resources (so called indivisible body ofknowledge), where empirical coefficients are suggested to be used, thecoefficients being different for minor, normal and path breakinginventions.

Yet another attempt to develop a meaningful scheme for evaluating andrating of patents has been made by Japanese Patent Office (JPO), see,e.g. a JPO draft “Patent Related Evaluative Indexes”, July 1999,http://www.ipo.go.ip/saikine/body.htm, and “Patent Evaluation Index(edition of technology transfer), March 2000 available athttp://www.ipo.go.jp/saikine/tt1302-072.htm. The suggested evaluationscheme is based on a point score system. The patent is rated inaccordance with several categories of questions, where each question inthe category is given a certain number of points that are added to atotal score for the category. This system is similar to a well knownpoint score testing system widely used in education, where a student'sknowledge is evaluated. Unfortunately, the point score system for patentevaluation suggested by the JPO, though at first glance being similar tothe educational point score system, is not a suitable choice forevaluating patent documents due to the substantially different nature ofpatents and student's knowledge. For example, a point score system fortesting a student's knowledge may work satisfactory, where the fact thatthe student does not know certain areas decreases his/her final markonly slightly. In contrast, lack of certain qualities in a patent maychange its value substantially, which is not adequately reflected in thepoint score system. As a result, the point score system, when applied topatents, may give inaccurate and confusing results, contradicting withthe common sense, with independent evaluation of patents provided byexperts, and/or certain patenting criteria established at various PatentOffices.

Moreover, such contradictory results would not allow to distinguishbetween those patents, which still have real value, although it may bemoderate or low, and those to which some residual value is assigned onlydue to imperfections of the evaluation system being used. As a result,the point score system cannot provide consistent data for patentevaluation, especially for evaluation of patent portfolios having largequantities of patents.

Modifications of the point score system have been used in other methodsof patent evaluation. One of them has been proposed by PatentCafe.com,Inc. in the “PatentCafe® Invention and Product Evaluation System”, whichis available at http://evaluation.patentcafe.com/sample_medical.pdf,wherein the overall score over a number of parameters is calculated.Another point score method is used in the IPScore® software evaluationtool developed by the Danish Patent Office and available athttp://www.ipscore.com, and yet another point score method has beenproposed in the U.S. Pat. No. 6,452,613 to Lefebvre issued Sep. 17, 2002and applied to evaluating patent submissions.

A traditional accounting approach for evaluating monetary value ofpatents by applying Cost, Income and Market methods has been used by PLXSystems, Inc., see e.g. http://www.plxsystems.com/1.1.software.shtml orhttp://www.pl-x.com.

Yet another patent evaluation method using citation index, technologycycle time and science linkage has been used by IPTEC, Inc., anintellectual property services provider in Taiwan.

Another shortcoming in the area of patent evaluation is a lack ofautomated and consistent analysis and interpretation of the evaluationresults. Normally, the evaluation of a patent document andinterpretation of the evaluation results is carried out by experts.However, it has at least four serious deficiencies that make thepractical value of such interpretation questionable: the interpretationis often subjective, heavily based on expert's knowledge and experiencewhich may differ from patent to patent and from expert to expert; itdefeats the goals of keeping the level of consistency in the patentevaluation process as high as possible; it slows down the evaluationprocess; and it makes the evaluation process more expensive.

Another shortcoming of the currently known manual patent evaluationprocess is lack of meaningful and informative visual presentation of theresults of patent evaluation, especially when large portfolios of patentdocuments have to be analyzed.

Accordingly, there is a need in the industry for the development of amethod and system for systematic evaluation of patent documents, whichwould be more reliable, provide more consistent and meaningful results,and consequently, would be suitable for the analysis of large patentportfolios.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

Therefore it is an object of the invention to provide a method andsystem for evaluation of patent documents, which would avoid theabove-mentioned problems, while providing more consistent results andbeing suitable for the analysis of large patent portfolios.

It is another object of the invention to provide a method and system,which would ensure an automated and consistent interpretation of theresults of patent evaluation, and a friendly visualization of theresults of evaluation, which would be easy to comprehend.

According to one aspect of the invention there is provided a method forevaluating a patent document, comprising the steps of:

-   -   (a) introducing a set of one or more patent indices,        characterizing different aspects (features) of the patent        document; and    -   (b) combining said patent indices into a Patent Quality index        (the PQ), characterizing value of the patent document, according        to a non-linear function, which is monotonous, continuous and        bounded on the interval of variation of the patent indices.

Conveniently, the step (a) comprises assigning numerical values to thepatent indices, and the step (b) comprises combining the assigned valuesinto to the PQ automatically.

Beneficially, the step (a) comprises introducing a hierarchy of patentindices, wherein each of the patent indices is further characterized byits respective patent sub-indices, and wherein the step (b) comprisingcombining said patent sub-indices into the respective patent indices,the combining of the sub-indices being performed according to one of thefollowing:

-   -   (i) according to a linear function; and    -   (ii) according to a non-linear function, which is monotonous        continuous and bounded on the interval of variation of the        patent sub-indices.

Conveniently, the step (a) comprises introducing a hierarchy of patentindices having M layers, the 1 st layer corresponding to the PQ, whereineach of the patent indices of a layer in the hierarchy except for theM-th layer (indices of a higher layer), is further characterized by itsrespective patent sub-indices (indices of a lower layer). The step (b)comprises combining said patent indices of the lower layer (k+1) intothe respective patent indices of the higher layer (k), wherein k=2, . .. M, according to one of the following:

-   -   (i) according to a linear function; and    -   (ii) according to a non-linear function, which is monotonous        continuous and bounded on the interval of variation of the        patent sub-indices.

Advantageously, the step (a) comprises assigning numerical values to thepatent indices of the lowest M-th layer only, and the step (b) comprisescombining the assigned numerical values into the respective indices ofhigher layers and into the PQ automatically.

The assigning of the numerical values to the patent indices is performedby experts by comparing each of the patent indices with the respectiveindex of an Etalon Patent (EP), the EP being a patent devoted to thesame problem as the patent document, although possibly providing adifferent solution, and characterized with the same set of patentindices, all of the patent indices of the EP being equal to theirmaximal values.

Beneficially, the step (b) comprises combining the patent indices intothe PQ according to the non-linear function, which satisfies thefollowing rule:

-   -   (i) for any patent index, higher values of the Patent Quality        correspond to higher values of said patent index.

The step (b) may comprise combining the patent indices into the PQaccording to the non-linear function, which further satisfies thefollowing rule:

-   -   (ii) when values for all patent indices tend to the        substantially same value of “p”, then the Patent Quality would        tend substantially to the value calculated as if the Patent        Quality depended solely upon a index whose value is equal to        “p”.

Beneficially, the step (b) comprises combining the patent indices intothe PQ according to the non-linear function, which satisfies thefollowing rule:

-   -   (iii) when a value of any patent index tends substantially to        its minimal value, then Patent Quality value also tends        substantially to its minimal value; and    -   wherein the indices introduced in the step (a) have been chosen        such that to satisfy the rule (iii).

If the selected non-linear function is monotonous and decreasing, thenthe above noted rule has to be changed accordingly. Then the step (b)will comprise combining the patent indices into the PQ according to thenon-linear function, which satisfies the following rule:

-   -   (iii) when a value of any patent index tends substantially to        its minimal value, then Patent Quality value tends substantially        to its maximal value; and    -   wherein the indices introduced in the step (a) have been chosen        such that to satisfy the rule (iii).

According to another aspect of the invention there is provided a methodfor evaluating a patent document, comprising the steps of:

-   -   (a) introducing a set of one or more patent indices,        characterizing different aspects (features) of the patent        document; and    -   (b) combining said patent indices into a Patent Quality index (a        PQ), characterizing value of the patent document, according to a        function, which is monotonous, continuous and bounded on the        interval of variation of the patent indices, the function is        linear if the patent document if characterized by one index        only, and non-linear if the patent document is characterized by        two or more patent indices.

Advantageously, the step (a) comprises introducing a hierarchy of patentindices, wherein each of the patent indices is further characterized byits respective patent sub-indices, and the step (b) comprising combiningsaid patent sub-indices into the respective patent indices, thecombining of the sub-indices being performed according to one of thefollowing:

-   -   (i) according to a linear function; and    -   (ii) according to a non-linear function, which is monotonous        continuous and bounded on the interval of variation of the        patent sub-indices.

Conveniently, the function is a monotonous increasing function, i.e. thestep (b) comprises combining the patent indices into the PQ according tothe non-linear function that satisfies the following rule:

-   -   (i) for any patent index, higher values of the Patent Quality        correspond to higher values of said patent index.

Beneficially, the step (b) comprises combining the patent indices intothe PQ according to the non-linear function, which satisfies thefollowing rule:

-   -   (iii) when a value of any patent index tends substantially to        its minimal value, then Patent Quality value also tends        substantially to its minimal value; and    -   wherein the indices introduced in the step (a) have been chosen        such that to satisfy the rule (iii).

The step (b) comprises combining the patent indices into the PQaccording to the non-linear function, which satisfies yet another rule:

-   -   (ii) when values for all patent indices tend to the        substantially same value of “p”, then the Patent Quality would        tend substantially to the value calculated as if the Patent        Quality depended solely upon an index whose value is equal to        “p”.

If the non-linear function is a decreasing function, the step (b)comprises combining the patent indices into the PQ according to thenon-linear function, which satisfies the following rule:

-   -   (iii) when a value of any patent index tends substantially to        its minimal value, then Patent Quality value tends substantially        to its maximal value; and    -   wherein the indices introduced in the step (a) have been chosen        such that to satisfy the rule (iii).

Conveniently, the step (a) further comprises introducing coefficientsK₁,K₂, . . . ,K_(n), wherein the coefficient K_(i), i=1, . . . nindicates the relative strength of the contribution of the i-th patentindex into the PQ, e.g. wherein the step (b) comprises combining thepatent indices x₁, x₂, . . . , x_(n) into the PQ according to thefollowing expression${\frac{1}{PQ} = {{K_{1} \cdot \frac{1}{x_{1}}} + {K_{2} \cdot \frac{1}{x_{2}}} + \ldots + {K_{n} \cdot \frac{1}{xn}}}},$wherein K_(i), i=1, . . . n is a coefficient indicating the relativestrength of the contribution of the i-th patent index into the PQ, andK₁+K₂+ . . . +K_(n)=1.

To select the proper non-linear function, which would adequatelydescribe the evaluation process, e.g. performed by a specific expert,the step (b) may comprise selecting said non-linear function from afamily of non-linear functions determined by a parameter ofnon-linearity, wherein each function in the family corresponds to theunique value of the parameter of non-linearity. One possible form ofsuch function described in the embodiments of the invention is shownbelow:${{PQ} = \frac{1}{1 - b + {b \cdot \left( {\frac{K_{1}}{x_{2}} + \frac{K_{2}}{x_{2}} + \ldots + \frac{K_{n}}{x_{n}}} \right)}}},$wherein x₁, x₂, . . . , x_(n), are patent indices, b is a parameter ofnon-linearity, and K_(i), i=1, . . . n is a coefficient indicating therelative strength of the contribution of the i-th patent index into thePQ, K₁+K₂+ . . . +K_(n)=1.

The method described above further comprises determining a monetaryvalue of the patent document as a product of the PQ and a monetary valueof an Etalon Patent (EP) under current market conditions, the EP being apatent devoted to the same problem as the patent document, althoughpossibly providing a different solution, and characterized with the sameset of patent indices, all of the patent indices of the EP being equalto their maximal values.

To improve and automate the interpretation of the results of patentevaluation, the method may further comprise the step of analyzing valuesof the patent indices by an Artificial Intelligence (AI) system,including generating a conclusion regarding the value of the patentdocument based on the performed analysis, and optionally generating areason associated with the generated conclusion. Conveniently, thegenerated conclusion and/or the generated conclusion along with thereason are displayed to a user. In the embodiment of the invention, theAI system is a decision tree based AI system.

Various choice can be made with regard to patent indices, preferablychoosing the patent indices so that to satisfy the rules (postulates)described in detail in the specification. One possible choice of patentindices includes introducing one or more patent indices from thefollowing set of patent indices, characterizing Technical Merit,Commercial Value, Legal Strength, Inventive Merit, and Utility. Thepatent indices may be further characterized by their own sub-indices,e.g. the patent index of Technical Merit may be characterized by thefollowing sub-indices: Degree of technical importance to business;Difficulty of manufacturing; Degree of technical solution of a problem;Difficulty of designing around; and Number of existing alternativesolutions.

The patent index of Inventive Merit may be characterized by thefollowing sub-indices: Invention scale; Degree of the solution of theproblem; Uniqueness of the invention; Degree of Novelty; Originality ofthe solution; and Technical effectiveness of the proposed solution.

The patent index of Commercial Value may be characterized by thefollowing sub-indices: Life cycle stage of the patent document; Size ofthe market to serve; Required investment; and Scalability for VolumeProduction.

The patent index of Legal Strength may be characterized by the followingsub-indices: Scope of claims; Infringement detectability; Chances ofinfringing third party patents; Chances of invalidity of the patentdocument; and Easiness to design around the proposed solution.

Additionally, the described method may further comprise the step ofvisualizing the value of the patent document by using a color coding ofthe patent document based on the value of the PQ index. For example, thestep of visualizing may comprise providing a correspondence between thevalue of the PQ index of the patent document and the wavelength of aselected color of a visible part of the light spectrum, e.g. wherein thestep of providing correspondence comprises providing correspondencebetween the value of the PQ index PQ₀ and the wavelength of the selectedcolor λ₀ as follows:${\lambda_{0} = {\lambda_{\min} + {\frac{\lambda_{\max} - \lambda_{\min}}{{PQ}_{\max} - {PQ}_{\min}} \cdot \left( {{PQ}_{0} - {PQ}_{\min}} \right)}}},$wherein [PQ_(min), PQ_(max)×] is a range of variation of the PQ index,and [λ_(min), λ_(max)] is a wavelength range of the visible part of thelight spectrum.

If the patent document is characterized by one, two or three patentindices, then the step of visualization may comprise visualizing thevalue of the patent document (the PQ index) as a color point in a systemof coordinates with the number of axes being equal to the number ofpatent indices, the coordinates of the color point being equal to thevalues of the patent indices, and the color of the color point being inaccordance with the value of the PQ index of the patent document.

A respective computer database stored in a computer memory, comprisingpatent evaluations of patent documents, each patent valuation beingperformed in accordance with the methods described above is alsoprovided.

According to another aspect of the invention there is provided a systemfor evaluating a patent document, comprising:

-   -   a data input means for receiving an input data with regard to        one or more patent indices, characterizing different aspects        (features) of the patent document; and    -   a Patent Quality processing unit for processing the input data        into an output data as a non-linear function of said patent        indices, which is monotonous continuous and bounded on the        interval of variation of patent indices, the output data        comprising a Patent Quality (PQ) index characterizing the value        of the patent document.

The system further comprises a graphical user interface for displayingone of the output data, and the input and output data to a user, whereinthe graphical user interface comprises a computer readable program codestored in a computer memory, which when executed, provides a graphicalmeans for entering and displaying the input data, and a graphical meansfor displaying the output data. Conveniently, the graphical meanscomprises a slider, having a linear scale, a sliding object movablealong the linear scale, and a counter associated with the linear scaleand showing the current position of the sliding object on the linearscale. Beneficially, the means for processing comprises a means forprocessing the input data into the output data as the non-linearfunction of the patent indices, which satisfies the following rule:

-   -   (i) for any patent index, higher values of the Patent Quality        correspond to higher values of said patent index.

Conveniently, the means for processing further comprises a means forprocessing the input data into the output data as the non-linearfunction of the patent indices, which satisfies the following rule:

-   -   (ii) when values for all patent indices tend to the        substantially same value of “p”, then the Patent Quality would        tend substantially to the value calculated as if the Patent        Quality depended solely upon a single index whose value is equal        to “p”.

Alternatively, if the non-linear function is a decreasing function, themeans for processing comprises a means for processing the input datainto the output data as the non-linear function of the patent indices,which satisfies the following rule:

-   -   (iii) when a value of any patent index tends substantially to        its minimal value, then Patent Quality value also tends        substantially to its maximal value; and    -   wherein the patent indices have been chosen so that to satisfy        the rule (iii).

The PQ processing unit further comprises a means for determining amonetary value of the patent document as a product of the PQ and amonetary value of an Etalon Patent (EP) under current market conditions,the EP being a patent devoted to the same problem as the patent sdocument, although possibly providing a different solution, andcharacterized with the same set of patent indices, all of the patentindices of the EP being equal to their maximal values.

Beneficially, the system further comprising means for storing the inputand processed data in a database or for sending said data over anetwork, the system being implemented to be accessible via a corporateIntranet or the Internet.

Additionally, the system may comprise an Artificial Intelligence (AI)Unit, comprising an AI system for analyzing the input data andgenerating a conclusion regarding the value of the patent document basedon the performed analysis, e.g. a decision tree base AI.

A computer readable memory having recorded thereon statements andinstructions for execution by a computer to carry out the processing ofa number of patent indices, characterizing different aspects of thepatent document, into a Patent Quality index (the PQ), as described inthe above method, is also provided. Advantageously, said statements andinstructions comprise statements and instructions for processing thepatent indices into the PQ according to the increasing non-linearfunction, which satisfies the following rule:

-   -   if any of the patent indices tends substantially to its minimal        value, then the PQ also tends substantially to its minimal        value; and wherein the patent indices are chosen so that to        satisfy said rule.

A computer program product, comprising a memory having computer readablecode embodied therein, for execution by a CPU, to carry out theprocessing of a number of patent indices, characterizing differentaspects of the patent document into a Patent Quality index (the PQ),which characterizes value of the patent document, as described in theabove method, is also provided, wherein beneficially the processing ofthe patent indices into the PQ is performed according to the non-linearfunction, which is continuous, monotonous, increasing, bounded functionon the interval of variation of the patent indices, and satisfies thefollowing rule:

-   -   if any of the patent indices tends substantially to its minimal        value, then the PQ also tends substantially to its minimal        value; and    -   wherein the patent indices have been chosen so that to satisfy        said rule.

A computer data signal, representing sequences of statements andinstructions, which when executed by a processor cause the processor todetermine a Patent Quality index of a patent document, whichcharacterizes value of the patent document, as described in the abovemethod, may be embodied in a carrier wave.

According to yet another aspect of the invention there is provided asystem for evaluating a patent document, comprising:

-   -   a computer;    -   a web site for receiving an input data with regard to a number        of patent indices, characterizing different aspects (features)        of the patent document; and    -   a program executing on said computer for determining a Patent        Quality index (the PQ), which characterizes value of the patent        document, as a non-linear function of patent indices, which is        continuous monotonous and bounded on the interval of variation        of the patent indices.

Conveniently, the system further comprises a program executing on saidcomputer for analyzing the input data by an Artificial Intelligencesystem, including generating a conclusion regarding the value of thepatent document based on the performed analysis.

The computer program further provides a graphical user interface, havinga computer readable program code stored in a computer memory, which whenexecuted, provides graphical means for entering and displaying the inputdata, and graphical means for displaying the output data, e.g. thegraphical means may have a form of a slider, having a linear scale, asliding object movable along the linear scale, and a counter associatedwith the linear scale and showing the current position of the slidingobject on the linear scale.

In the system described above, the program executing on said computerfurther determines a monetary value of the patent document as a productof the PQ and a monetary value of an Etalon Patent (EP) under currentmarket conditions, the EP being a patent devoted to the same problem asthe patent document, although possibly providing a different solution,and characterized with the same set of patent indices, all of the patentindices of the EP being equal to their maximal values.

Beneficially, the program executing on said computer determines thePatent Quality index as an increasing function of its patent indices,which satisfies the following rule:

-   -   if value of any of the patent indices tends substantially to its        minimal, then the PQ value also tends substantially to its        minimal value; and    -   wherein the patent indices have been chosen so that to satisfy        said rule.

Conveniently, the system further comprises means for sending results ofthe program execution over a network, or for storing said results in adatabase.

According to one more aspect of the invention there is provided a website for evaluating a patent document, comprising:

-   -   a link on the web site causing a computer program code        associated with the web site and stored in a computer memory to        be executed so as to provide a data input means for receiving an        input data with regard to a number of patent indices,        characterizing different aspects of the patent document, and to        perform calculations of a Patent Quality index (the PQ), which        characterizes value of the patent document, as a non-linear        function of patent indices, which is continuous monotonous and        bounded on the interval of variation of the patent indices. The        computer program code is executed so as to further determine a        monetary value of the patent document as a product of the PQ and        a monetary value of a Etalon Patent (EP) under current market        conditions, the EP being a patent devoted to the same problem as        the patent document, although possibly providing a different        solution, and characterized with the same set of patent indices,        all of the patent indices of the EP being equal to their maximal        values. The said computer program code further provides a        graphical user interface, comprising means for entering and        displaying the input data, and means for displaying an output        data on a computer screen. For example, the means for entering        and displaying may comprise a slider, having a linear scale, a        sliding object movable along the linear scale, and a counter        associated with the linear scale and showing the current        position of the sliding object on the linear scale.        Beneficially, the computer program performs calculations of the        PQ according to the non-linear function, which is increasing and        satisfies the following rule:    -   if value of any of the patent indices tends substantially to its        minimal value, then the PQ value also tends substantially to its        minimal value; and    -   wherein the patent indices have been chosen so that to satisfy        said rule.

Additionally, the calculations of the PQ may be performed according tothe non-linear function, which further satisfies another rule:

-   -   when values for all patent indices tend to the substantially        same value of “p”, then the Patent Quality would tend        substantially to the value calculated as if the Patent Quality        depended solely upon a single index whose value is equal to “p”.

On the web site described above, the computer program is furtherexecuted so as to S perform the analysis of the input data by an AIsystem, including generation of a conclusion regarding the value of thepatent document based on the performed analysis.

The invented method for patent quality evaluation is more reliable,semi-automated where it is appropriate, and provides more consistentresults compared to the prior art attempts of evaluating patents. Itmakes the invented method also applicable to the evaluation of largeportfolios of patent documents, thus providing a patent evaluationmethod of industrial strength.

The corresponding system for patent quality evaluation has the sameadvantages as the above-mentioned method, as well as the additionaladvantages of having a friendly graphical user interface, beingconveniently accessible via a corporate Intranet or the Internet, and asa result increasing the productivity of experts.

The Artificial Intelligence system for interpreting results of patentevaluation, beneficially used in both method and system for patentevaluation, provides an automated interpretation of patent indices, thusmaking the whole evaluation process even more uniform and consistent,and results thereof much easier to comprehend.

The color coded visualization of the results of patent evaluationfurther enhances the invented system and method of patent evaluation andmake them easier to use and comprehend.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

Embodiments of the invention will now be described, by way of example,with reference to the accompanying drawings in which:

FIG. 1 illustrates a dependence of Patent Quality, determined inaccordance with a method for patent evaluation of a first embodiment ofthe invention, as a function of one of its patent indices with andwithout presence of other patent indices, the value of said other patentindices being fixed;

FIG. 2 illustrates a dependence of Patent Quality, determined inaccordance with the method for patent evaluation of the first embodimentof the invention, as a function of two patent indices (a PatentEvaluation Space), where both indices provide an equal contribution tothe value of the Patent Quality;

FIG. 3 illustrates the Patent Evaluation Space for the Patent Qualitydepending on two patent indices, determined in accordance with themethod for patent evaluation of the first embodiment of the invention,where contribution of said two indices to the value of the PatentQuality is different;

FIG. 4 illustrates a three-dimensional cross-section of thefour-dimensional Patent Evaluation Space, determined for the PatentQuality depending on three patent indices in accordance with the methodof the first embodiment of the invention, the cross-sectioncorresponding to the value of Patent Quality equal to 0.8;

FIG. 5 illustrates a series of three-dimensional cross-sections of thefour-dimensional Patent Evaluation Space, determined for the PatentQuality depending on three patent indices in accordance with the methodof the first embodiment of the invention, the cross-sectionscorresponding to the values of the Patent Quality equal to 0.8, 0.85,0.9 and 0.95 respectively counting from left to right;

FIG. 6 illustrates the Patent Evaluation Space for the Patent Qualitydepending on two patent indices, determined in accordance with themethod for patent evaluation of the second embodiment of the invention,where the parameter of non-linearity is equal to b=0.2, and both indicesprovide an equal contribution to the value of the Patent Quality;

FIG. 7 illustrates the Patent Evaluation Space for the Patent Qualitydepending on two patent indices, determined in accordance with themethod for patent evaluation of the second embodiment of the invention,where the parameter of non-linearity is equal to b=5, and both indicesprovide an equal contribution to the value of the Patent Quality;

FIGS. 8A to 8E illustrate patent evaluations performed by experts havingno bias, a positive bias, and a negative bias, and proposed solutionshow to compensate said bias;

FIGS. 9A and 9B show two models for Patent Quality evaluation,illustrating different choices of patent indices;

FIG. 10 shows a model for Patent Quality evaluation corresponding to themodel of FIG. 9A, which further illustrates the expansion of the patentindices into respective sub-indices;

FIG. 11 shows a model for Patent Quality evaluation corresponding to themodel of FIG. 9B, which further illustrates the expansion of the patentindices into respective sub-indices;

FIG. 12 shows a system for patent evaluation (Patent Quality Calculator)implementing methods of the embodiments of the invention;

FIG. 13 shows a graphical user interface for the Patent QualityCalculator of FIG. 12;

FIG. 14 is a flow-chart illustrating operation of the Patent QualityCalculator of FIG. 12;

FIG. 15 shows a system for determining a bias of an expert;

FIG. 16 shows an Artificial Intelligence (AI) Unit of the Patent QualityCalculator of FIG. 12 in more detail;

FIGS. 17A to 17E illustrate a process of designing a Knowledge base(decision tree) of the AI Unit of FIG. 16;

FIG. 18 shows a detailed structure of the Knowledge base (decision tree)of the AI Unit of FIG. 16 for analyzing a patent document characterizedby two patent indices;

FIG. 19 shows a detailed structure of the Knowledge base (decision tree)of the AI Unit of FIG. 16 for analyzing a patent document characterizedby three patent indices;

FIG. 20 shows a flow chart illustrating a method for forming a team ofexperts;

FIG. 21 shows a system for forming a team of experts;

FIG. 22 shows a system for evaluating a patent portfolio (PatentPortfolio Quality Calculator);

FIG. 23 shows the structure of the Authentication Unit, theAdministration Unit, the Experts Unit, and the PQ Processing Unit of thePatent Portfolio Quality Calculator of FIG. 22 in more detail;

FIGS. 24A to 24F show various screens of the Patent Portfolio QualityCalculator of FIG. 22;

FIGS. 25A to 25C show an upper section, a middle section and a lowersection of a sample of patent evaluation respectively as presented to anadministrator, the middle section including the Patent QualityCalculator of FIG. 12 and the GUI of FIG. 13;

FIG. 25D shows a modified Conclusion box of the lower section of FIG.25C as presented to an expert;

FIGS. 26A to 26D show one form of visualization representation of theresults of patent portfolio evaluation for an ideal, useless, lowquality and high quality patent portfolios respectively; and

FIGS. 27A to 27C show another form of visualization representation ofthe results of patent portfolio evaluation for a high quality, averagequality and low quality patent portfolios respectively; and

FIG. 28 shows yet another form of visualization representation of theresults of patent portfolio evaluation using a color coding of patentsaccording to their Patent Quality.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE EMBODIMENTS OF THE INVENTION

The exploitation of patents includes, among other things, establishingtheir monetary value. Since selling, buying or licensing of patents isquite common activity in the field of patent exploitation, we assumethat any patent can be assigned a certain Monetary Value (MV).Establishing the monetary value of a patent can be a daunting exercise,because of the numerous factors to be taken into consideration and ahigh degree of subjectivity involved. However, the general trend seemsto be quite clear—a better patent is considered to have a highermonetary value.

To make the term “better patent” meaningful, we introduce an EtalonPatent (EP), which is an imaginary or existing patent closely associatedwith the original patent (the patent document under consideration), anda measurable quantity referred to as a Patent Quality (PQ), which isassigned to the original patent following the procedure of comparison ofthe original patent and its etalon counterpart. The Etalon Patent is thepatent devoted to the same problem as the original patent, however thesolution which it offers may be different, discloses a breakthroughsolution that makes further exploration of other ways of solving theproblem unnecessary, holds virtually unlimited potential forcommercialization, and puts unbeatable legal barriers for competitors tocopy or design around the solution disclosed in the EP. We assume thatfor any patent there exists the corresponding Etalon Patent. The EtalonPatent can be thought of as a patent perfect in all respects, andtherefore its monetary value (MVEP) will depend only on other factorsthat may change over time, such as current market situation, forexample.

The Etalon Patent plays the role of a measuring stick, similar to therole of the meter as the etalon of length. However, the procedure ofcomparing the original and etalon patents is substantially morecomplicated than its length-measuring counterpart, since patents have afar more complicated structure that should be taken into account whencomparing them. The procedure is directed towards determining how closethe original patent approaches the Etalon Patent. The result of thecomparison is represented as the value of the Patent Quality to bereferred to as Patent Quality for brevity. Using the concept of PatentQuality, a better patent can be defined as the patent with higher PatentQuality.

If the Patent Quality (PQ) for the original patent and the MonetaryValue of the corresponding Etalon Patent (MVEP) have been established,then the Monetary Value (MV) of the original patent can be determined asa product of the Monetary Value of the Etalon Patent and the PatentQuality for the original patent:MV=MVEP·PQ  (1)

The procedure for determining the PQ is as follows.

First, the original patent and its etalon counterpart are characterizedby a number of indices, each characterizing a different aspect (feature)of the patent, which are preferably stripped down to only selectedindices that are essential for comparison. These indices are arrangedinto a hierarchical structure of the complexity depending on therequired accuracy of the PQ determination, level of objectivity, ease ofuse etc. Each index contributes to the Patent Quality (or to anotherindex in the higher layer of the index hierarchy), the individualcontribution PQ_(i) of the i-th index x_(i) into the PQ depending on thevalue of the index. For comparison purposes, each index of the originalpatent is considered to determine how close it approaches thecorresponding index of the Etalon Patent having its maximal value.

When deciding which indices are essential, it is taken into account thatany patent document (a patent or a patent application) shoulddemonstrate legal patentability criteria of Novelty, Utility andInventive Step (Non-Obviousness) established at Patent Offices aroundthe world in order to issue into a patent. When conducting evaluation ofa patent document for sale, licensing or other purposes, a number ofother indices, of possibly a broader scope, are taken into account.These indices are selected in a variety of ways to reflect the value ofthe patent document for a potential transaction, for example asTechnical Merit, Commercial Value and Legal Strength of the patentdocument under consideration. A detailed discussion of possible choicesof patent indices is provided in the section entitled “Choice of PatentIndices” below.

Thus, the model for Patent Quality evaluation according to theembodiments of the invention includes “n” patent indices, whose valuesare normally provided by experts.

The Postulates (The Rules)

We assume that the relationship between the Patent Quality and itspatent indices, whatever concrete form it takes, may be expressed by anon-linear function, which is monotonous, continuous and bounded on theinterval of variation of patent indices.

Conveniently, the non-linear function is governed by the following firstset of rules:

-   -   1. For numerical values of patent indices in a certain range [A,        B], e.g. [0, 1], the Patent Quality range will be in a range [C,        D], e.g. in the same range [0, 1].    -   2. For any patent index, higher values of Patent Quality        correspond to higher numerical values of that patent index.    -   3. When a numerical value for any patent index tends        substantially to its minimal value, e.g. zero, then Patent        Quality would also tend substantially to its minimal value, e.g.        zero.

Beneficially, the relationship between the PQ and its patent indices isalso governed by a second set of rules, which is added to the abovenoted first set of rules, namely:

-   -   4. When numerical values for all patent indices tend to the        substantially same value of “p”, then the Patent Quality would        tend substantially to the value calculated as if the Patent        Quality depended solely upon a single index with its numerical        evaluation equal to “p”.

5. When numerical values for all patent indices tend to their maximalvalue, e.g. equal to 1, then the Patent Quality would also tend to itsmaximal value, e.g. also equal to 1.

The above five rules have been developed in the course of research onthe patent evaluation process and based on, though not limited to,common sense and best practices of qualified experts. Either the firstset of rules, or the first and second sets of rules combined togetherare considered as a system of postulates upon which a practically viablesystem for evaluation is being based.

Let us briefly discuss the rationale behind each rule.

Rule No.1. The range of [0, 1] for both the numerical values of patentindices and the Patent Quality comes naturally from the way we compareoriginal and etalon patents. Any index characterizing the originalpatent can be, at best, only as good as the corresponding index of theetalon patent. The latter, by design, plays the role of a basic unit ofmeasurement, which is customary to represent numerically by unity (e.g.like 1 meter, or 1 second). It is natural, therefore, to establish theupper limit for the numerical value of any index of the original patentat the level of unity. In other situations, the numerical value of theindex can be represented only by a fraction of the upper limit value. Inthe worst-case scenario, the smallest possible fraction is practicallyundistinguishable from zero. The same considerations apply to the PatentQuality. Thus, conveniently the range of [0, 1] has been chosen for bothnumerical evaluation of patent indices and the Patent Quality, althoughit is understood that that other ranges for both the PQ and patentindices may be chosen if necessary.

Rule No.2 is self-explanatory, being based on common sense that, for anypatent index, higher values of Patent Quality correspond to highernumerical evaluations of that index, all other things being equal.

Rule No.3. To understand the origins of the Rule No.3, let us consider apatent, which is perfect in all respects except for its commercialpotential, i.e. the Commercial Value index for this patent is close toits minimal value. The low commercial potential of the patentundoubtedly drives the value of the patent down. In the extreme case ofa complete lack of any possibility of commercial gain, this patent indexalone abolishes the value of the patent as a whole regardless of thevalue of other patent indices, and consequently drives the PatentQuality close to zero (i.e. its minimal value). Similar considerationsmay be applied to other situations when patents have, for example, aninadequate legal protection, or lack of technical merits, novelty,utility etc.

Rule No.4 is a generalization of a property of a simple one-index patenton a patent characterized by multiple indices. Consider, for example, apatent that is characterized solely by its Commercial Value index. Inthis simple case, the statement of the Rule No.4 evidently holds true.Let us assume, for clarity, that both Commercial Value and PatentQuality are equal to 0.5, which makes it a patent of an average quality.Suppose we add a second index to the same patent, e.g. a Legal Strengthindex, which is also equal to 0.5. The common sense suggests that thenew addition does not make the patent any more distinguished thanpreviously thought, which means that the Patent Quality value shouldremain around 0.5. This is precisely what Rule No.4 requires, namelythat the addition of new patent indices of the same value does notchange (or substantially change) the perceived value of the PatentQuality. However, the addition of a new index of a different value willchange the perceived value of the Patent Quality. For example, if LSvalue is around 0.1, this will undoubtedly drive the PQ value down.

Rule No.5 covers a very special case of a patent, which is perfect inall respects without any exception. Such patent gets the highest PatentQuality value, which is equal to unity (PQ=1) for the selected range [0,1] of the PQ variation according to the Rule No. 1.

First Embodiment of the Invention

To design a method for patent evaluation based on these rules, let usfirst consider a simplified situation, when the i-th patent index issolely contributing to the Patent Quality as if there were no otherpatent indices whatsoever.

In the first embodiment of the invention, we assume that thecontribution of the i-th index into the Patent Quality PQ_(i) dependslinearly upon this index numerical value as shown below:PQ _(i) =x _(i) ; i=1 . . . n;  (2)

However, contrary to the popular belief, when several patent indicescontribute to the Patent Quality simultaneously, this dependence changesdrastically and becomes non-linear. The roots of this non-linearitybecome apparent if we re-write the equation (2) using the invertedvalues $\begin{matrix}{{\frac{1}{{PQ}_{i}} = \frac{1}{x_{i}}};{i = {1\quad\ldots\quad n}};} & (3)\end{matrix}$

When several indices contribute to the Patent Quality simultaneously,then the inverted value of the Patent Quality becomes equal to thelinear combination of the inverted values of respective patent indices,each contributing into the Patent Quality: $\begin{matrix}{{{\frac{1}{PQ} = {{K_{1} \cdot \frac{1}{x_{1}}} + {K_{2} \cdot \frac{1}{x_{2}}} + \ldots + {K_{n} \cdot \frac{1}{x_{n}}}}};}{{{K_{1} + K_{2} + \ldots + K_{n}} = 1};}} & (4)\end{matrix}$where K_(i) is the normalized coefficient indicating relative strengthof the contribution of the i-th index into the Patent Quality, thustaking into account the relative importance of the patent featurecorresponding to the i-th index, which contributes to the PQ.

Thus, the required dependence of the Patent Quality on its patentindices can be written in the form (5) shown below, which follows fromthe above noted expression (4): $\begin{matrix}{{PQ} = \frac{1}{\frac{K_{1}}{x_{1}} + \frac{K_{2}}{x_{2}} + \ldots + \frac{K_{n}}{x_{n}}}} & (5)\end{matrix}$

Let us analyze the expression (5) more closely for two special cases.

(a) Suppose that the second index solely contributes to the PatentQuality. This means that K₁=K₃= . . . =K_(n)=0 and K₂=1. This transformsthe expression (5) into the form of $\begin{matrix}{{PQ} = \frac{1}{\frac{1}{x_{2}}}} & \left( {6a} \right)\end{matrix}$The latter can be simplified intoPQ=x ₂  (6b)

This linear dependence (6b) is shown by a solid line 12 on atwo-dimensional graph 10 of FIG. 1 illustrating the dependence of thePatent Quality as a function of one of its patent indices (in this caseas a function of x₂), when only the index upon which the dependence havebeen drawn is solely contributing to the PQ.

(b) Suppose now that in addition to the above noted second index x₂, thefirst index x₁ also contributes to the Patent Quality. In this case, K₃=. . . =K_(n)=0 and K₁+K₂=1. This transforms the expression (5) into thefollowing form $\begin{matrix}{{{PQ} = \frac{1}{\frac{K_{1}}{x_{1}} + \frac{K_{2}}{x_{2}}}};} & (7)\end{matrix}$

Let us fix the value of x₁ and analyze the dependence (7) of PQ versusx₂ again. It is clearly seen that the dependence of PQ versus x₂ nowbecomes non-linear in the presence of x₁. This is illustrated by adotted line 14 in FIG. 1, which shows the dependence of the PatentQuality as a function of x₂, with x₁ being present, but fixed to x₁=0.5.In FIG. 1, the normalized coefficients K₁ and K₂ indicating relativestrength of the contribution of the first and second indices x₁ and x₂into the Patent Quality have been chosen equal, i.e. K₁=K₂=0.5.

Similar considerations will yield similar results for any other choiceof indices, namely, if the Patent Quality depends on any single indexonly, then this dependence is a linear function, although if two or moreindices contribute to the Patent Quality, then this dependence becomesnonlinear.

A three-dimensional graph 20 illustrating Patent Quality as a functionof two Patent indices x₁ and x₂ according to the expression (7) shownabove for K₁=K₂=0.5 is illustrated in FIG. 2. It has a shape of a convexmountain-like surface with symmetrical slopes 23 and 24, which is widerat the base, and converges at the top into a single point 22corresponding to x₁=x₂=1 and PQ=1. It means that the higher is the valueof the Patent Quality, the smaller is the pool of suitable values ofrespective patent indices, which provide such a value of the PQ.

If one index contributes to the Patent Quality more than the other one,i.e. K₁≠K₂, the surface 20 depicted on FIG. 2 loses its symmetry, butotherwise remains similar. This situation is illustrated by athree-dimensional graph 30 of FIG. 3, which is designed in accordancewith the expression (7) for K₁=0.9 and K₂=0.1. It is seen that the graph30 also has a curved mountain-like surface, which is wider at thebottom, though the slopes 32 and 33 of the surface become asymmetrical,with the steeper slope 33 corresponding to the first patent index havinglarger normalized coefficient K₁ and providing higher contribution tothe Patent Quality. Both slopes 32 and 33 still converge at the top intoa single point 22 corresponding to x₁=x₂=1 and PQ=1.

Each point on the depicted curved surfaces 20 and 30 shown in FIGS. 2and 3 respectively represents a patent document characterized by twopatent indices. The opposite statement also holds true, i.e. for anypatent document that is characterized by two patent indices, there isthe corresponding point on the respective surface. In this sense, thesurface 20 of FIG. 2 (or the surface 30 of FIG. 3) is considered as thePatent Evaluation Space (PES). Accordingly, properties of the patentevaluation method are reflected in the geometrical shape of the PES, andstudying the PES provides understanding and effective use of thecorresponding patent evaluation method.

Let us determine the PES for the case when Patent Quality depends onthree patent indices, e.g. Technical Merit, Commercial Value and LegalStrength as briefly mentioned above. When three patent indices are takeninto account, the expression (5) takes the form of $\begin{matrix}{{PQ} = \frac{1}{\frac{K_{1}}{x_{1}} + \frac{K_{2}}{x_{2}} + \frac{K_{3}}{x_{3}}}} & (8)\end{matrix}$Unfortunately, it is impossible to view the PES in its entirety becauseit spreads out into a fourth dimension. However, it is possible to getsome information about the PES by studying its three-dimensionalcross-sections corresponding to different values of PQ.

FIG. 4 shows a three-dimensional graph 40 illustrating a cross-section42 of the PES designed in accordance with the expression (8) forK₁=K₂=K₃=1/3 and corresponding to PQ=0.8. The cross-section 42 islocated in the upper right corner (1,1,1) of the Patent Quality cubewith side lengths of patent indices equal to one, and it has a curvedconvex surface.

A series of cross-sections 50 of the PES designed in accordance with theexpression (8) for K₁=K₂=K₃=1/3 are shown in FIG. 5, the cross-sectionscorrespond to Patent Quality values of 0.80, 0.85, 0.90, and 0.95respectively and are correspondingly designated by reference numerals52, 54, 56 and 58. The cross-sections form a set of three-dimensionalshapes of a decreasingly smaller size, such that the higher is the valueof Patent Quality, the further away to the right the shape moves,becoming accordingly smaller.

Using the notion of the Patent Quality defined above in the expression(5), the monetary value of a patent can be determined in accordance withthe expression (1) as follows: $\begin{matrix}{{{MV} = {{MVEP} \cdot \frac{1}{\frac{K_{1}}{x_{1}} + \frac{K_{2}}{x_{2}} + \ldots + \frac{K_{n}}{x_{n}}}}}{{{K_{1} + K_{2} + \ldots + K_{n}} = 1};}} & (9)\end{matrix}$

-   -   Thus, the method for Patent Quality and Monetary Value        evaluation according to the first embodiment of the invention,        where the PQ is expressed as a non-linear function for any        number of patent indices larger than one, has been provided.

Second Embodiment of the Invention

A method for patent quality evaluation according to the secondembodiment is also based on a non-linear relationship between the PQ andpatent indices, which conveniently satisfies the rules 1-5 set outabove. In the second embodiment, contrary to the assumption (2) made inthe first embodiment of the invention, we assume that the contributionof the i-th index depends non-linearly upon its numerical value, eventhough when there are no any other indices contributing to the PQ (i.e.even though the i-th index is solely contributing to the PQ). The degreeof non-linearity is determined by a parameter of non-linearity “b”. Itis measured on the scale of [0,∞], with b=1 indicating the completeabsence of non-linearity.

Let us modify the inverted values of PQ_(i) and x_(i) so as to bringthem into the range of [0,∞], coinciding with the range of variationsfor the parameter of non-linearity “b”, i.e. we will use$\left( {\frac{1}{{PQ}_{i}} - 1} \right)$instead of $\frac{1}{{PQ}_{i}},$and $\left( {\frac{1}{x_{i}} - 1} \right)$instead of $\frac{1}{x_{i}}.$We also assume that the modified inverted value of the Patent Quality isproportional to the modified inverted numerical evaluation of the i-thindex: $\begin{matrix}{{{\frac{1}{{PQ}_{i}} - 1} = {b \cdot \left( {\frac{1}{x_{i}} - 1} \right)}};\quad{i = {1\quad\ldots\quad n}};} & (10)\end{matrix}$Here n indicates the total number of indices.

Let us re-write the expression (10) in the form that is more convenientfor further generalization: $\begin{matrix}{{\frac{1}{{PQ}_{i}} = {1 - b + {b \cdot \frac{1}{x_{i}}}}};{i = {1\quad\ldots\quad n}};} & (11)\end{matrix}$

When several indices contribute to the Patent Quality simultaneously,then the inverted value of the Patent Quality becomes the linearcombination of the inverted values of individual contributions of patentindices to the Patent Quality: $\begin{matrix}{{{\frac{1}{{PQ}_{i}} = {1 - b + {b \cdot \left( {{K_{1} \cdot \frac{1}{x_{1}}} + {K_{2} \cdot \frac{1}{x_{2}}} + \ldots + {K_{n} \cdot \frac{1}{x_{n}}}} \right)}}};}{{{K_{1} + K_{2} + \ldots + K_{n}} = 1};}} & (12)\end{matrix}$where K_(i) is the normalized coefficient indicating the relativestrength of the i-th patent index contribution into Patent Quality.Thus, the dependence (12) can be written in the form of: $\begin{matrix}{{PQ} = \frac{1}{1 - b + {b \cdot \left( {\frac{K_{1}}{x_{1}} + \frac{K_{2}}{x_{2}} + \ldots + \frac{K_{n}}{x_{n}}} \right)}}} & (13)\end{matrix}$

FIGS. 6 and 7 show Patent Evaluation Spaces 60 and 70 designed inaccordance with the expression (13) for b=0.2 and b=5 respectively. Forclarity, it is assumed that in both cases only two indices x₁ and x₂evenly contribute to the Patent Quality, i.e. n=2; K₁=K₂=0.5.

The surface of FIG. 6 is a curved convex surface, resembling a box shapewith rounded edges, having symmetrical convex sides 62 and 63 thatconverge at the top into a single point 22 corresponding to x₁=x₂=1 andPQ=1.

In contrast, the surface of FIG. 7 is a curved concave surface, withconcave slopes 72 and 73 still converging at the top into a single point22 corresponding to x₁=x₂=1 and PQ=1.

In accordance with (1) and (13), the monetary value of a patent can bedetermined as follows: $\begin{matrix}{{MV} = {{MVEP} \cdot \frac{1}{1 - b + {b \cdot \left( {\frac{K_{1}}{x_{1}} + \frac{K_{2}}{x_{2}} + \ldots + \frac{K_{n}}{x_{n}}} \right)}}}} & (14)\end{matrix}$

Thus, the method of Patent Quality evaluation of the second embodimentof the invention, where the PQ is expressed as a non-linear function forany number of patent indices, has been provided.

Method for Determining a Bias of an Expert and a Bias Compensated Methodfor Patent Evaluation

Expressions (13) and (14) have a useful application to the solution ofthe problem of inconsistency of patent evaluation provided by differentexperts. Normally, experts are expected to determine values of variousPatent Indices objectively, which would result in objectivedetermination of the Patent Quality (PQ) of a patent. However, in reallife each expert inevitably brings certain bias into evaluation based onhis/her skills, education, experience, views etc. This bias makes someexperts systematically overestimate contribution of a certain index intothe Patent Quality, while others tend to systematically underestimateit. As a result, evaluation of a patent may differ substantially fromwhat would be expected in the absence of such bias. If the resultingPatent Quality is higher than expected, the evaluation is referred to asoverly optimistic. If it is lower, the evaluation is overly pessimistic.

Diagrams 74, 75 and 76 shown in FIGS. 8A, 8B, and 8C illustrate thissituation. For illustrative purposes, we assume that a single PatentIndex characterizes the patent. In this simple case, the Patent Qualityis proportional to the Patent Index as shown in FIG. 8A (line 12) inaccordance with the expression (2) described above. Thus, if the valueof the Patent Index is “a”, the corresponding value of the PatentQuality is also “a”. This correspondence is represented on line 12 bypoint “A”. Ideally, an unbiased expert assigns the same value “a” to thePatent Index during the patent evaluation, which results in correctdetermination of the Patent Quality to be also equal to “a”. If anexpert overestimates the value of the Patent Index to be “a+d”, as shownin FIG. 8B, the corresponding Patent Quality value becomes “a+d”, whichis higher than the expected value of “a”. This correspondence is shownon line 12 by point “B”. Similarly, an underestimation of the value ofthe Patent Index to be “a-d”, as shown in FIG. 8C, brings thecorresponding Patent Quality value down to “a-d”, which is lower thanthe expected value of “a”. This correspondence is shown on line 12 bypoint “C”.

The situation gets even worse when multiple experts need to be involvedas, e.g. in the case of evaluating a large patent portfolio. Sincedifferent experts have different levels of bias, the consistency ofevaluation may suffer to the point of rendering the evaluation projectnearly useless. The insufficient consistency may also prevent a team ofexperts to work in parallel on evaluation of the patent portfolio.

To reduce the harmful effect of the bias of an expert on the PatentQuality evaluation, we offer to distort the Patent Quality versus PatentIndices dependence in such a way as required to compensate for mistakesin assigning values to the Patent Indices. For this purpose, a suitablefunction from the family of non-linear functions (13) described earlieris chosen to combine Patent Indices into the Patent Quality. A diagram77 of FIG. 8D illustrates how such compensation works for the abovenoted single patent index example shown in FIGS. 8A to 8C in the case ofthe overestimation of the Patent Index.

Let us choose a parameter of non-linearity “b” in the expression (13) sothat b>1 and the new dependence of the Patent Quality upon the PatentIndex is now represented by a curved line 12d following from theexpression (13), the line 12d being disposed generally lower than theline 12.

If an expert overestimates the value of the Patent Index to be “a+d”,which is illustrated by point “B” in FIGS. 8B and 8D, the new dependencerepresented by line 12d nevertheless brings the correct value of “a” ofthe corresponding Patent Quality as illustrated by point “D” belongingto the line 12 d in FIG. 8D. Thus, the harmful effect of the expert'soverestimation of the Patent Index on the determination of the PatentQuality has been corrected.

Similar considerations apply to the case of Patent Indexunderestimation, illustrated by a diagram 78 in FIG. 8E. The parameterof non-linearity “b” in the expression (13) is chosen this time so thatb<1 and the new dependence of the Patent Quality upon the Patent Indexis now represented by a curved line 12 e following from the expression(13), the line 12 d being disposed generally higher than the line 12.

If an expert underestimates the value of the Patent Index to be “a-d”,which is illustrated by point “C” in FIGS. 8C and 8E, the new dependencerepresented by line 12e nevertheless brings the correct value of “a” ofthe corresponding Patent Quality as illustrated by point “E” belongingto the line 12 e in FIG. 8E. Thus, the harmful effect of the expert'sunderestimation of the Patent Index on the determination of the PatentQuality has been corrected.

To characterize the bias of an expert, we offer to introduce ameasurable quantity, called a bias coefficient “B”. Conveniently, thebias coefficient “B” is measured on a scale of [−1, 1], with B=0indicating a complete absence of bias, B>0 indicating an overlyoptimistic patent evaluation by an expert, and B<0 indicating an overlypessimistic evaluation. The value of the bias coefficient “B” of anexpert determines the value of the parameter of non-linearity “b”required for compensation of the experts' bias according to thetechnique described above.

In the third embodiment of the invention, we assume that parameter ofnon-linearity “b” depends upon the bias coefficient B of an expert inthe following manner: $\begin{matrix}{b = \frac{1 + B}{1 - B}} & (15)\end{matrix}$

Correspondingly, the parameter of non-linearity “b” is expressed interms of the bias coefficient “B” as follows: $\begin{matrix}{B = \frac{b - 1}{b + 1}} & (16)\end{matrix}$Substituting (15) into (13), we will get the following expression forcalculating Patent Quality using bias coefficient of an expert as aparameter, that compensates the bias introduced by the expert:$\begin{matrix}{{PQ} = \frac{1 - B}{{{- 2} \cdot B} + {\left( {1 + B} \right) \cdot \left( {\frac{K_{1}}{x_{1}} + \frac{K_{2}}{x_{2}} + \ldots + \frac{K_{n}}{x_{n}}} \right)}}} & (17)\end{matrix}$

The corresponding expression for determining the Monetary Value of thepatent takes the form of $\begin{matrix}{{MV} = {{MVEP} \cdot \frac{1 - B}{{{- 2} \cdot B} + {\left( {1 + B} \right) \cdot \left( {\frac{K_{1}}{x_{1}} + \frac{K_{2}}{x_{2}} + \ldots + \frac{K_{n}}{x_{n}}} \right)}}}} & (18)\end{matrix}$

The Patent Evaluation Spaces 60 and 70 of FIGS. 6 and 7 described above,while illustrating the shapes of PESs for various parameters ofnon-linearity “b”, at the same time illustrate the PESs for differentbias coefficients, when the relationships (15) and (16) between theparameter of non-linearity “b” and a bias coefficient B are taken intoaccount.

For example, the PES 60 of FIG. 6 corresponds to the parameter ofnon-linearity b=0.2, or according to the expression (15), to theassociated bias coefficient B=(0.2-1)/(0.2+1)=−2/3<0, which is negativeand therefore represents an overly pessimistic patent evaluation by anexpert. This is reflected in the rounded box-shaped surface of the PES60, where most of the surface 60 corresponds to high values of PatentQuality that are around or close to unity, thus compensating forunderestimation of the values of the PQ by the expert.

In contrast, the PES 70 of FIG. 7 corresponds to the parameter ofnon-linearity b=5, or according to the expression (15), corresponds tothe associated bias coefficient B=(5-1)/(5+1)=2/3>0, which is positiveand therefore represents an overly optimistic patent evaluation by anexpert. Similarly, this is reflected in the gently sloping shape of thesurface of the PES 70, where most of the surface 70 corresponds to lowvalues of Patent Quality that are around or close to zero, thuscompensating for overestimation of the values of the PQ by the expert.

Thus, a bias compensated method for Patent Quality and Monetary Valueevaluation according to the third embodiment of the invention, where thePQ is expressed as a non-linear function of patent indices, which takesinto account a bias of an expert influencing the evaluation of thepatent document, has been provided.

Calibration of an Expert

To determine the value of the bias coefficient specific to a certainexpert, i.e. to calibrate the expert's input, the expert is presentedwith a carefully engineered test patent, having a pre-determined testvalue of the Patent Quality PQ_(p) assigned to the test patent by atrusted expert. Alternatively, the trusted expert may provide his/herinput with regard to the PQ_(p) according the selected function, e.g.such that $\begin{matrix}{{PQ}_{p} = \frac{1}{\frac{K_{1}}{x_{1p}} + \frac{K_{2}}{x_{2p}} + \ldots + \frac{K_{n}}{x_{np}}}} & (19)\end{matrix}$where x_(1p), . . . , x_(np) are numerical values of the Patent Indicesassigned by the trusted expert.

The expert, whose input is to be calibrated, is asked to evaluate thesame test-patent by assigning the Patent Quality value PQ_(c) to thetest patent, or preferably, by assigning values to the respective patentindices, which are combined into the resulting Patent Quality PQ_(c)according to the same selected function: $\begin{matrix}{{PQ}_{c} = \frac{1}{\frac{K_{1}}{x_{1c}} + \frac{K_{2}}{x_{2c}} + \ldots + \frac{K_{n}}{x_{nc}}}} & \left( {19a} \right)\end{matrix}$where x_(1c), . . . , X_(nc) are numerical values of the Patent Indicesassigned by the expert to be calibrated.

The so assigned or calculated PQ_(c) is then compared with thecorresponding pre-determined test value of PQ_(p), which is consideredto be the correct value of the Patent Quality for the test patent. Toensure more reliable results, a number of trusted experts may evaluatethe same test patent, and the PQ_(p) may be taken as the average valueacross the Patent Quality values provided by the number of trustedexperts. It is understood that if values of the PQ_(p) and PQ_(c)provided by the trusted expert and the expert to be calibrated areequal, then the expert must be considered to be unbiased. Any differencebetween the PQ_(p) and PQ_(c) is attributed to the expert's bias, thelarger difference being considered as an indication of the strongerbias. The amount of difference is conveniently expressed in terms of theparameter of non-linearity “b”. Let us re-write the formulae (19) and(19a) emphasizing modified inverted Patent Quality: $\begin{matrix}{{\frac{K_{1}}{x_{1p}} + \frac{K_{2}}{x_{2p}} + \ldots + \frac{K_{n}}{x_{np}} - 1} = {\frac{1}{{PQ}_{p}} - 1}} & \left( {19b} \right) \\{{\frac{K_{1}}{x_{1c}} + \frac{K_{2}}{x_{2c}} + \ldots + \frac{K_{n}}{x_{nc}} - 1} = {\frac{1}{{PQ}_{c}} - 1}} & \left( {19c} \right)\end{matrix}$Let us multiply both parts of (19c) by the parameter of non-linearity b:$\begin{matrix}{{b \cdot \left( {\frac{K_{1}}{x_{1c}} + \frac{K_{2}}{x_{2c}} + \ldots + \frac{K_{n}}{x_{2c}} - 1} \right)} = {b \cdot \left( {\frac{1}{{PQ}_{c}} - 1} \right)}} & \left( {19d} \right)\end{matrix}$Let us also choose b to be such that $\begin{matrix}{{b \cdot \left( {\frac{K_{1}}{x_{1c}} + \frac{K_{2}}{x_{2c}} + \ldots + \frac{K_{n}}{x_{nc}} - 1} \right)} = {\frac{K_{1}}{x_{1p}} + \frac{K_{2}}{x_{2p}} + \ldots + \frac{K_{n}}{x_{np}} - 1}} & \left( {19e} \right)\end{matrix}$effectively compensating the difference in assigning values of PatentIndices x_(1c) . . . x_(nc) compared to x_(1p) . . . x_(np).Substituting (19d) and (19b) into (19e) we get the following equationfor determining b: $\begin{matrix}{{\frac{1}{{PQ}_{p}} - 1} = {b \cdot \left( {\frac{1}{{PQ}_{c}} - 1} \right)}} & \left( {19f} \right)\end{matrix}$Solving (19f) for b, the following expression can be obtained:$\begin{matrix}{b = \frac{\frac{1}{{PQ}_{p}} - 1}{\frac{1}{{PQ}_{c}} - 1}} & (20)\end{matrix}$

Taking into account (15), the expression (20) can be modified todetermine the expert's bias coefficient B for the test patent given thePatent Quality PQ_(p) assigned to the test patent by a trusted expertand the Patent Quality PQ_(c) assigned to the test patent by the expertto be calibrated: $\begin{matrix}{B = \frac{{PQ}_{c} - {PQ}_{p}}{{PQ}_{p} + {PQ}_{c} - {2 \cdot {PQ}_{p} \cdot {PQ}_{c}}}} & (21)\end{matrix}$

The described procedure of determining a bias coefficient B is repeateda number of times for a set of test patents, and the resulting set ofcalculated bias coefficients B₁, B₂, . . . , B_(m), where m is the totalnumber of test patents in the set, is used for determining the averagevalue <B> of the bias coefficient B of the expert across the set of testpatents: $\begin{matrix}{\left\langle B \right\rangle = \frac{B_{1} + B_{2} + \ldots + B_{m}}{m}} & (22)\end{matrix}$

Accordingly, the average value <B> is considered to represent the biascoefficient specific to the expert. Using <B> instead of B in theexpression (17), we get the bias corrected formula for calculating thePatent Quality specific to a given expert, wherein the correction isachieved by introducing certain distortions into the expression (17)associated with the <B> coefficient, which would compensate for theexpert's bias.

Thus, a method for determining a bias of an expert has been provided.

Choice of Patent Indices

Various models for Patent Quality evaluation may include a variousnumber of patent indices of a different scope.

For example, one model 80 a for evaluating Patent Quality 82 shown inFIG. 9A includes three indices x₁, x₂ and x₃, which characterizeTechnical Merit, Commercial Value and Legal Strength of the patentdocument respectively. The above noted indices are designated byreference numerals 83, 84 and 85 in FIG. 9A accordingly.

An alternative model 80 b for Patent Quality (82) evaluationschematically shown in FIG. 9B includes another selection of patentindices x₁, x₂ and X₃, this time characterizing Inventive Merit (86),Commercial Value (84) and Legal Strength (85) of the patent documentrespectively.

It is contemplated that additional patent indices may be introduced inthe above-noted models 80 a to 80 c for patent quality evaluation, orsome indices may be taken away and/or replaced with other indices, thetotal number of indices not being limited, e.g. a new index ofimportance to a particular business may be introduced in addition tothree indices described above, or alternatively, the patent document maybe characterized by two patent indices only.

It is assumed that selected patent indices may or may not include, orpartially include, the legal patentability criteria of Novelty, Utilityand Inventive Step as parts thereof, assuming that the selected patentindices may be defined differently and of a broader scope. For example,Technical Merit may include some aspects of the Inventive Step and/orUtility, while Legal Strength may take into account whether Novelty andUtility have been actually demonstrated by the invention, and Utilitymay include some aspects of the Commercial value if this index has notbeen introduced separately.

In turn, all or some of the Patent Indices may be defined morethoroughly by introducing their own sub-indices contributing to therespective patent indices, thus creating another layer of the hierarchyof indices, all of them ultimately contributing to the integral value ofthe Patent Quality.

A model 100 for Patent Quality 82 evaluation illustrated in FIG. 109 issimilar to that of FIG. 9A described above, except for each of saidthree indices of Technical Merit (83), Commercial Value (84) and LegalStrength (85) now being broken down into a number of sub-indices 120 to146 as shown in detail below.

Namely, the Index x₁ of Technical Merit (83) includes the followingsub-indices:

-   -   x₁₁, characterizing a Degree of technical importance to a        particular business (120);    -   x₁₂, characterizing Technical difficulty of manufacturing, from        very easy to very difficult (122);    -   x₁₃, characterizing a Degree of technical solution of a problem,        from partial solution to full solution (124);    -   x₁₄, characterizing Difficulty of designing around, from very        easy to almost impossible (126); and    -   x₁₅, characterizing a number of existing alternative solutions        to this problem (128).

The Index x₂ of Commercial Value (84) includes the followingsub-indices:

-   -   x₂₁, characterizing the Life cycle stage of the patent document,        from the patent application to the issued patent close to its        expiry (130);    -   x₂₂, characterizing the Size of the market to serve (132); and    -   x₂₃, characterizing the required investment (134) to        commercialize the invention.

The Index x₃ of Legal Strength (85) includes the following sub-indices:

-   -   x₃₁, characterizing Scope of claims (140);    -   x₃₂, characterizing Detectability for infringement purposes        (142);    -   x₃₃, characterizing Chances of invalidity of the patent document        (144); and    -   x₃₄, characterizing Chances of infringing 3rd party patents by        the product described in the patent under consideration (146).

A model 200 for Patent Quality 82 evaluation illustrated in FIG. 11 issimilar to that of FIG. 9B described above, except for each of saidthree indices of Inventive Merit (86), Commercial Value (84) and LegalStrength (85) now being broken down into a number of sub-indices 212 to232 as shown in detail below.

Namely, the Index x₁ of Inventive Merit (86) includes the followingsub-indices:

-   -   x₁₁, characterizing Invention scale (212), from a minor        improvement to a land mark invention;    -   x₁₂, characterizing Effectiveness of the proposed solution        (214), i.e. whether this is a partial or complete solution of        the problem to be provided by the invention;    -   x₁₃, characterizing Uniqueness of the invention (216); and    -   x₁₄, characterizing Degree of Novelty of the invention (218).

The Index x₂ of Commercial Value (84) includes the followingsub-indices: x₂₁, characterizing the Potential Market to serve (220);

-   -   x₂₂, characterizing the Life cycle stage of the patent document        (222), i.e. whether this is a patent application, a newly issued        patent, or a patent close to its expiry; and    -   x₂₃, characterizing the Scalability for Volume production (224),        i.e. if required, whether it is easy to increase the production        volume of the product described by the invention.

The Index x₃ of Legal Strength (85) includes the following sub-indices:

-   -   x₃₁, characterizing Scope of claims (230);    -   x₃₂, characterizing Infringement detectability (232); and    -   x₃₃, characterizing easiness to design around the proposed        solution (234).

Thus, in models for Patent Quality evaluation 100 and 200 of FIGS. 10and 11, experts provide only estimation of patent sub-indices x_(ij)instead of the direct estimation of Patent Indices x_(1,2,3), thesub-indices being combined into the respective Patent Indices, and thenthe Patent indices being combined into the Patent Quality without theinvolvement of experts.

Beneficially, the sub-indices are chosen so that to allow theircombination into Patent Indices according to a non-linear function,which is similar (or identical) to one of the functions (5), (13) or(17) that have been used for combining Patent Indices into the PatentQuality according to the embodiments of the invention.

It is also understood that patent sub-indices may or may not be combinedinto Patent Indices according to the non-linear formulae (5), (13), (17)or variations thereof. Some or all of the sub-indices may be selected sothat to allow their combination according to some other linear ornon-linear formulae, which may or may not satisfy the rules No. 1-5 setout above.

The number of sub-indices for each of the Patent Indices may vary, andthe sub-indices may have their own sub-sub-indices etc, thus forming ahierarchy of indices. For example the hierarchy may have “M” layers, the1st layer corresponding to the PQ index, wherein each of the patentindices of a layer in the hierarchy (indices of a higher layer) exceptfor the M-th layer, is further characterized by its respective patentsub-indices (indices of a lower layer). For example, the sub-index x₂₃(Required Investment 134) may have a number of sub-sub-indices 150 shownin FIG. 9, only two of them being shown: x₂₃₁ (Initial Investment 152)and x₂₃₂ (Further Investments 154), while the sub-index X₃₃ (Chances ofinvalidity of the patent document 144) may include a number ofsub-sub-indices 156, such as x₃₃₁ (Lack of novelty 158), and x₃₃₂ (Lackof support for claims in the specification 160) being illustrated. Ifrequired, sub-sub-indices 152, 154, 158 and 160 may be further brokendown into their own layer of indices in the hierarchy, thus introducingfiner granularity of indices to be evaluated by experts. Beneficially,the experts estimate only the indices of the finest (lowest) layer inthe hierarchy of indices, and the results of the expert's evaluation arecombined into the next (higher) layer of indices automatically accordingto the chosen evaluation method. In turn, the so combined indices arethen automatically combined into the next (yet higher) layer of patentindices according to the same (or another chosen) method, and so on,until the Patent Quality 82 is determined.

Numerous further modifications may be made to the embodiments describedabove. Instead of the non-linear function for patent quality evaluationas expressed by equations (5), (13) and (17), other non-linearfunctions, combinations of linear and non-linear functions, or othermathematical non-linear transformations, such as integral ordifferential transformations, may also be used to combine the selectedpatent indices into the integral Patent Quality index. Beneficially,such non-linear functions are chosen to satisfy all the rules No. 1-5set out above, or alternatively only selected rules from the rules No.1-5, in order to ensure consistency with the common sense evaluationprovided by industry experts.

It is contemplated that in a further modification to the aboveembodiments of the methods, an additional step of automatic analyzingand interpreting the patent indices may be introduced, e.g. with the aidof an Artificial Intelligence (AI) unit, the details of which will bedescribed below.

The methods for patent quality and monetary value evaluation of theembodiments of the invention have the following advantages.

Firstly, they allow separating the process of evaluating Patent Indicesby experts from the process of combining said indices into the PatentQuality, which is performed automatically and consistently, thusreducing harmful effect of experts' mistakes in determining PatentQuality.

Secondly, the methods allow taking into account the importance ofdifferent patent indices and their relative contributions to the PQ bychoosing corresponding values of normalized coefficients Ki.

Thirdly, the introduction of a bias coefficient in the evaluation methodreduces the harmful effect of a bias associated with a given expert onthe patent Quality evaluation. It also imposes less stringentrequirements on expert qualifications as patent indices are much easierto estimate than the integral PQ index, and any isolated mistake or anarbitrary judgment with regard to a patent index in one of the layers inthe hierarchy of patent indices may distort the integral Patent Qualitycharacteristic only slightly. As a result, the level of subjectivity ofpatent evaluation is substantially reduced, and consistency ofevaluation between different experts and different patents is increased.

Finally, combining of the Patent Indices into the Patent Qualityaccording to a non-linear scale, especially when satisfying all orselected rules 1-5 set out above, provides more reliable results ofpatent evaluation compared to the prior art, which comply with bestevaluation practices used by trusted experts and avoid contradictoryresults demonstrated by the prior art. An automatic analysis andinterpretation of patent indices by an AI unit further increasesconsistency and reliability of the patent evaluation process.

The results of patent quality and monetary value evaluation of themethods of the embodiments of the invention may be used for variouspurposes, e.g. for determining a dollar value and/or licensing potentialof a patent or a large patent portfolio, determining structure of apatent portfolio, making various decisions regarding maintenance of apatent portfolio such as paying maintenance fees, requestingexaminations, responding to examiners' reports, just to name a few.

Monetary Value of an Etalon Patent

Determining a fair monetary value of a patent has always been adifficult problem to tackle. Various attempts to attack have resulted inthe development of several solution as cited in the Background sectionof this patent application, but none of them is considered completelysatisfactory. There is a certain amount of confusion about validity ofthese solutions, because most of them can be applied to a patentsimultaneously, though each solution produces a different result. In ouropinion, much of the confusion stems from mixing for one another twodifferent values, namely the value of the patent on an invention, andvalue of the invention itself. It also adds to confusion that inventorsand society appreciate inventions and patents drastically different.Society values inventions greatly for the benefits arising from theirimplementation and is not much interested in patents per se. Patents arejust the tools of convenience to facilitate generation of moreinventions. To the contrary, inventions per se have relatively littlevalue for inventors since the prospective for commercial gain is veryslim. Patents greatly improve this prospective and therefore become of agreat value by themselves to inventors.

Inventions provide multitude of benefits to the society, which can beroughly divided into two groups that are quite different in nature. Thefirst group includes benefits of improving existing goods and servicesand providing new ones, which were previously unheard of. The secondgroup includes much thought of benefits of providing tools, knowledge,insight and inspiration for researchers, other inventors or would-beinventors. One can appreciate the fact that it is relatively easy tomeasure the value of the benefits in the first group in monetary terms.However, when it comes to the benefits in the second group, attaching afair dollar figure to insight or inspiration is a challenge, if possibleat all. The value of these benefits is better measured by other means,for example, by the citation index et al. The different nature of twogroups of benefits of the invention makes it impossible to apply asingle unified measure to them, such as a monetary value.

To encourage inventors to share their knowledge within the society, theinventors are granted patents on their inventions, which is in essence atime-limited monopoly on selling goods and services based on theinventions. Patents themselves can be on sale, and therefore a questionabout their monetary value arises. Since patents do not restrict the useof inventions for research, educational purposes, and spreading theknowledge in the society, the benefits in the second group, howeverimportant for the society, play no role in the monetary value of thepatents. Accordingly, we will consider that the price of a patent isdetermined solely by the value of the benefits arising from improvementsin existing goods and services or creation of the new ones.

As a byproduct of this analysis we may conclude that any method ofpatent evaluation based on the use of parameters characterizing benefitsin the second group, such as citation index for example, are bound toproduce confusing results, which have little, if at all, to do with thereal monetary value of the patent.

Though establishing a monetary value of a patent under consideration canbe tricky, it is easier to do for an Etalon Patent, since it can bethought of as a patent ideal in all respects. We can safely assume thatevery product or service created or improved using the patented methodbased on the Etalon Patent will take the market by storm, blowcompetitors away and will hold its dominant position until its expirydate etc. Thus, the price of the Etalon Patent will depend mainly on thesize of the potential market for these products or services, and can bebased on the estimation of the potential profit generated thereof.

Accordingly, we suggest to determine the monetary value of the etalonpatent according to the following formula:${{MVEP} = {k \cdot {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\quad{\frac{{{MS}_{i} \cdot P_{i}} - {CP}_{i}}{t_{si}} \cdot t_{p}}}}},$where MS_(i) is the size of the market for the i-th product or service,P_(i) is the price of the i-th product or service, CPi is the cost ofproduction of the i-th product or providing the i-th service, t_(si) isthe estimated life time of the i-th product, t_(p) is the life time of apatent, n is the total number of products or services, and k is anempirical coefficient 0<k<1. If k is too close to unity, it makes littlesense to buy the patent since the potential profit from the products andservices for the purchaser will be low. If it is too close to zero, itmakes little sense to sell the patent since the potential profit for thepatent owner will be low.Patent Quality Calculator

A corresponding system (Patent Quality Calculator) for patent qualityand monetary value evaluation, implementing the above patent evaluationmethods of the embodiments of the invention, is also provided. Itcomprises a general purpose (or specialized) computer having a memory(computer storage means) for storing a computer program code causingsaid computer to perform patent evaluation according to the method ofone of the embodiments described above, followed by displaying theresults of the evaluation to a user. In more detail, experts evaluate apredetermined set of patent indices of a particular layer in thehierarchy of indices (e.g. sub-sub-indices), which they rate based onexpert(s) experience and knowledge of the subject matter. The systemreceives inputs from experts with the regard to the patent indices to beevaluated, and then combines the normalized indices into the respectiveindices of the higher layers in the patent index hierarchy, which areultimately combined into the integral Patent Quality index according tothe methods described above. The analysis and interpretation of patentindices values assigned by experts is provided by an ArtificialIntelligence system as will be described in detail below.

FIG. 12 shows a Patent Quality Calculator (PQC) 400 suitable forimplementing the methods of the embodiment of the invention. The PQC 400comprises Data Input Means 402 for entering an input data, e.g. experts'input on patent indices of a particular layer in the index hierarchy.The input data is forwarded to a PQ Processing Unit 404, comprising ameans for processing in the form of a computer program code stored in amemory, for calculating the Patent Quality and the correspondingMonetary Value as a function of the hierarchy of its indices. Thefunction is one of the non-linear functions (5), (13) or (17) describedabove or any other linear or non-linear function or mathematicaltransformation, which is used for combining patent indices into the PQ.The results of the PQ Processing Unit 404 are supplied to a GraphicalUser Interface (GUI) 408 for preparing the results of the processing anddisplaying them to a user. The Graphical User Interface 408 isimplemented as a computer readable program code stored in a computermemory, which when executed, provides graphical means for entering anddisplaying the input data, and graphical means for displaying the outputdata (PQ and Monetary Value of a patent) along with other patent indicesin the patent index hierarchy calculated by the PQ Processing Unit 404.The patent indices of the higher layer in the index hierarchy calculatedwithin the PQ Processing Unit 404 are also supplied to an ArtificialIntelligence (AI) Unit 410, comprising an AI computer program, whichprovides an automatic interpretation of the patent indices in a mannerthat mimics interpretation thereof by human experts. A conclusiongenerated by the AI Unit 410 is forwarded to the Graphical UserInterface 408 for the display to a user. A corresponding reason,explaining why the AI Unit has arrived at the conclusion, is alsoproduced within the AI Unit 410 and displayed on a screen via GUI 408,if requested. Alternatively, the patent indices of the higher layer inthe index hierarchy, if provided directly by experts via the Data InputMeans 402, may be supplied directly to the AI Unit 410 for the AIanalysis and interpretation, which is illustrated by a dashed linebetween the data Input Means 402 and the AI Unit 410.

The Graphical User Interface 408 for the Patent Quality Calculator 400is schematically shown in FIG. 13. By way of example, it corresponds tothe model 200 of Patent Quality 82 evaluation of FIG. 10, includingthree indices of Inventive Merit 86, Commercial Value 84 and LegalStrength 85 respectively, each index having corresponding sub-indices,the number of sub-indices being 10 in total.

The Graphical User Interface 408 has been designed as a set of slidingobjects (marbles) 510 a to 536 a movable along respective horizontallinear scales 510 b to 536b in a left to right direction, together withcorresponding odometer-style counters 510 c to 536 c reflecting thecurrent positions of the sliding objects, thus letting experts toexpress their estimation of patent indices graphically, by pushing asliding object along the respective linear scale. The respective slidingobjects, the linear scales and the counters are collectively referred toas sliders 510 to 536.

The sliders 510 to 536 are divided into two groups, the active slidersand the passive sliders. The active sliders (to be also referred to asgraphical means for entering and displaying the input data) allowexperts to change a position of their sliding objects by pushing them inthe desired direction, e.g. by placing the mouse pointer on the nearestelement of a linear scale, or by clicking the left button at the desiredlocation on the scale. In contrast, passive sliders do not respond tothe input of experts directly, instead positions of their slidingobjects depend upon the positions of a predetermined subset of othersliders, e.g. certain active sliders. In the GUI 408 shown in FIG. 13,there are four passive sliders 510, 512, 522 and 530 corresponding tothe Patent Quality and its three indices x₁, x₂, x₃ of Inventive Merit,Commercial Value and Legal Strength respectively. Thus, the slider 510provides a graphical displaying of the output data (the PQ), and thesliders 512, 522 and 530 provide a graphical displaying of thecalculated patent indices in the patent index hierarchy.

The relation between the Patent Quality and the three indicesrepresented by the passive sliders 512, 522 and 530 is governed by theexpression derived from the expression 17 shown above: $\begin{matrix}{{PQ} = \frac{1 - B}{{{- 2} \cdot B} + {\left( {1 + B} \right) \cdot \left( {\frac{K_{IM}}{x_{1}} + \frac{K_{CV}}{x_{2}} + \frac{K_{LS}}{x_{3}}} \right)}}} & (27)\end{matrix}$wherein K_(IM)+K_(CV)+K_(LS)=1, and B is a bias coefficient of theexpert conducting the evaluation.

There are also ten active sliders 514, 516, 518, 520, 524, 526, 528,532, 534 and 536 corresponding to the sub-indices x₁₁, x₁₂, x₁₃, x₁₄,x₂₁, x₂₂, x₂₃, x₃₁, x₃₂ and x₃₃ of the above three patent indices.

The relation between the Inventive Merit index x₁ and its foursub-indices x₁₁, x₁₂, x₁₃ and x₁₄ is governed by the followingexpression: $\begin{matrix}{x_{1} = \frac{1 - B}{{{- 2} \cdot B} + {\left( {1 + B} \right) \cdot \left( {\frac{K_{1}}{x_{12}} + \frac{K_{2}}{x_{12}} + \frac{K_{3}}{x_{13}} + \frac{K_{4}}{x_{14}}} \right)}}} & (28)\end{matrix}$wherein K₁+K₂+K₃+K₄=1; B is a bias coefficient; and x₁₂, x₁₂, x₁₃ andx₁₄ are sub-indices characterizing Invention Scale (212), Effectivenessof the Proposed solution (214), Uniqueness of the invention (216), andNovelty (218) respectively.

The relation between the Commercial Value index x₂ and its threesub-indices x₂₁, x₂₂ and x₂₃ is governed by the similar expression:$\begin{matrix}{x_{2} = \frac{1 - B}{{{- 2} \cdot B} + {\left( {1 + B} \right) \cdot \left( {\frac{K_{5}}{x_{21}} + \frac{K_{6}}{x_{22}} + \frac{K_{7}}{x_{23}}} \right)}}} & (29)\end{matrix}$wherein K₅+K₆+K₇=1; B is a bias coefficient; and x₂₁, x₂₂ and x₂₃ aresub-indices characterizing a Potential Market to serve (220), a Lifecycle stage of the patent document (222) and a Volume production factor(224). Similarly, for the Legal Strength index x₂ and its threesub-indices x₃₁, x₃₂ and x₃₃ we use the expression $\begin{matrix}{x_{3} = \frac{1 - B}{{{- 2} \cdot B} + {\left( {1 + B} \right) \cdot \left( {\frac{K_{8}}{x_{31}} + \frac{K_{9}}{x_{32}} + \frac{K_{10}}{x_{33}}} \right)}}} & (30)\end{matrix}$wherein K₈+K₉+K₁₀=1; B is a bias coefficient; and x₃₁, x₃₂ and x₃₃ aresub-indices characterizing Scope of claims (230), Infringementdetectability (232) and the Easiness to design around the proposedsolution (234).

Configuration parameters K_(IM), K_(CV), K_(LS), K₁ to K₁₀ and the biascoefficient B are chosen by default as follows:K_(IM)=0.6; K_(CV)=0.2; K_(LS)=0.2; K₁=K₂= . . . =K₁₀=0.5, and B=1.It is understood, however, that these parameters can be customized asrequired and may replace the default values.

A “Conclusion” box 540, located below the sliders 510-536 c in the lowerportion of the GUI 408, shows a conclusion generated by the AI Unit 410with regard to the patent document under consideration. A button “ShowReason” 542 beside the “Conclusion” box 540 serves the purpose ofrequesting the display of reasons leading to the above conclusion, thereasons being shown in a “Reason” box 544 located nearby the“Conclusion” box 540. A “Reset” button 546 serves the purpose ofresetting all sliding objects on respective linear scales to zeropositions.

Operation of the PQC 400 is described in detail with reference to FIG.14. Upon Start (block 602), the routine 600 representing the stepsinvolved in the operation of the PQC 400, prepares the GUI 408 fordisplaying and entering the input data on a screen. First, it drawssliders 510 to 536 c for the PQ, IM, CV, LS and its respectivesub-indices (blocks “Drawing active sliders”, “Drawing PI passivesliders”, and “Drawing PQ passive slider” labeled 604, 606 and 608respectively), wherein the marbles on the respective linear scalesreside in their initial zero positions. The conclusion box 540 is alsodrawn, but it is empty, as no patent evaluation has been performed yet.At this stage, the PQC 400 is waiting for the expert's (user) input 614.The expert's input regarding a certain sub-index in the form of a mousebutton click or a mouse pointer placement into a proper position alongthe respective scale is processed by the “Mouse Events” block 612 todetermine the action requested by the expert. The next block “New marblepositions on active sliders” (block 616) changes position of the marblealong the scale of the respective active slider.

Block “Calculating new PIs” 618 re-calculates new values of the relatedPatent Indices based on new values of their respective sub-indices, and,in turn, block “Calculating new PQ” 620 re-calculates the PQ index,which depends upon the three re-calculated patent indices.

The values of the re-calculated patent indices are submitted to the AIunit 410, which performs walking through the decision tree (block 626)based on the submitted values of PIs, and generates a conclusion (block628) with regard to the patent document under consideration, theconclusion being displayed (block 630) in the conclusion box 540 of theGUI 408. Optionally, the value of the PQ may also be supplied to the AIUnit 410, if required.

Accordingly, block “New marble positions on PI passive sliders” 622changes positions of the marbles along their respective scales on thescreen, and, finally, block “New Marble Position on PQ passive slider”624 brings the position of the PQ marble on the screen intocorrespondence with the new re-calculated PQ value.

Afterwards, the PQC 400 waits for a new user input 614, and the wholeprocess from bocks 614 to 630 starts all over again.

A System for Determining a Bias of an Expert

A system 650 for determining a bias of an expert influencing the processof evaluating a patent document is shown in FIG. 15. The system 650comprises a means for evaluating a test patent document by a trustedexpert according to a selected evaluation method, thus providing aPatent Quality value PQ_(p) of the test patent document assigned by thetrusted expert; a means for evaluating said test patent document by anexpert whose input to be calibrated by using the same selectedevaluation method, thus providing a Patent Quality value PQ_(c) of saidtest patent document assigned by the expert to be calibrated; and ameans for determining a bias of said expert to be calibrated as adependency on the PQ_(p), PQ_(c), and the selected evaluation method.

In more detail, the system 650 comprises a Data Input Means 402 a to 402n for logging onto a website 652 by Experts #1 to #N respectively, thewebsite comprising a link to an Authentication unit 654, which in turnhas access to a Registry of Trusted Experts 656 and a Registry ofExperts to be calibrated 658. The system 650 further comprises adatabase of Test Patents 660 that are to be offered for evaluation toone or more trusted experts, and afterwards to one or more experts whoseinput needs to be calibrated. The information from the Authenticationunit 654, Registry of Trusted Experts 656, Registry of Experts to becalibrated 658, and the database of test patents 660 is available to anExperts Unit 662, which manages evaluation of various test patents byvarious experts. The Experts Unit 662 comprises a means for keepingtrack of test patents that have been evaluated by a given expert; meansfor supplying a GUI 408 to experts #1 to #N for entering an input data,i.e. experts' input on patent indices of a particular layer in the indexhierarchy, through respective Data Input Means 402 a to 402 n; means forsupplying a sub-set of the test patents from the database of testpatents 660 to a given expert and allowing the expert to select the testpatent for evaluation; means for forwarding the input data to the PQProcessing Unit 404; and means for storing the input data and theresults of evaluation in a database (not shown). The system 650 furthercomprises an Administration Unit 664 which manages experts' privileges,e.g. access level, expert status (such as trusted expert, or an expertto be calibrated) et al., and the database of the test patents 660,including inclusion, exclusion or modification of test patents in thedatabase 660. The Administration Unit 664 has access to theAuthentication unit 654, to the Registries of trusted experts 656 andexperts to be calibrated 658, and to the database of test patents 660.The Administration unit 664 comprises means for assigning test patentsfor evaluation to various experts, means for monitoring the current listof experts who have any test patents assigned for evaluation, and thecurrent list of test patents under evaluation and their status.

An output of the PQ Processing Unit 404 is supplied to an input of aBias Coefficients Processing Unit 666, which calculates a biascoefficient “B” of an expert to be calibrated. The results of thecalculations are stored in a database of Bias Coefficients 668.

The system 650 for determining a bias of an expert operates in thefollowing manner. An administrator, through the means of theAdministration Unit 664, assigns a test patent to a trusted expert whois registered in the registry of trusted experts 656. The trustedexpert, when notified in some manner, enters the website 652 (includingthe authentication performed by the Authentication unit 654) in order tohave access to the test patent assigned by the administrator. Thetrusted expert evaluates patent indices x_(1p), . . . , x_(np) of thetest patent and enters them through one of the data input means 402 a to402 n and sliders of the GUI 408, which is supplied to the trustedexpert by the Experts Unit 662. The values x_(1p), . . . , x_(np) of thepatent indices are supplied to the PQ Processing Unit 404, whichcalculates the PQ_(p) according to a selected function, e.g. accordingto the expression (19) shown above, the value of the PQ_(p) is beingstored in a database (not shown).

After the test patent has been evaluated by the trusted expert, anadministrator, through the means of the Administration Unit 664, assignsthe same test patent to an expert whose input needs to be calibrated andwho is registered in the registry of experts to be calibrated 656. Theexpert to be calibrated, when notified in some manner, enters thewebsite 652 (including the authentication performed by theAuthentication unit 654) in order to have access to the test patentassigned by the administrator. The expert to be calibrated evaluatespatent indices x_(1c), . . . , x_(nc) of the test patent and enters themthrough one of the data input means 402 a to 402 n and sliders of theGUI 408, which is supplied to the expert to be calibrated by the ExpertsUnit 662. The values x_(1c), . . . , x_(nc) of the patent indices aresupplied to the PQ Processing Unit 404, which calculates the PQ_(c)according to a selected function, e.g. according to the expression (19a)shown above, the value of the PQ_(c) is being optionally stored in adatabase (not shown).

Both values of the Patent Quality PQ_(p) and PQ_(c) resulting from therespective evaluations provided by the trusted expert and the expert tobe calibrated are supplied to the Bias Coefficients Processing Unit 666for determining a bias coefficient “B” of the expert to be calibrated inaccordance with the expression (21) shown above. The results of thecalculations are stored in a database of Bias Coefficients 668.

Thus, a system for determining a bias of an expert influencingevaluation of a patent document has been provided.

Artificial Intelligence Unit 410

The AI unit 410, which provides the analysis and interpretation of thePatent Indices is a decision-tree based AI system, including an AIcomputer program code stored in a memory, which sufficiently accuratelymimics actions of human experts.

The AI Unit 410 is shown in more detail in FIG. 16. It includes a RulesDatabase 702, a Knowledge Base (decision tree) Unit 704, and an AIEngine 706. The Rules Database (DB) 702 stores all the rules that the AIunit 410 applies for the interpretation of Patent Indices. The KnowledgeBase Unit 704 defines the decision-tree structure, based on the rulesstored in the Rules DB 702, while the AI Engine 706 provides a mechanismfor actually walking the knowledge base until a proper conclusion isreached. The Rules DB 702 is stored in a text file in a humanly readableform, which allows for quick and easy modification of the rules, ifnecessary.

The AI unit 410 operates in the following manner. The AI Engine receivesdata from the PQ processing Unit 404 in the form of values of patentindices, and invokes generation of the decision tree within theKnowledge base Unit 704 according to the rules stored in the Rulesdatabase 702. The AI Engine 706 takes into account the received valuesof the patent indices and walks through the generated decision treeuntil the proper conclusion is reached, which is supplied to the GUI 408and displayed in the box 540 on a computer screen. If requested, arespective reason underlying the reached conclusion is also supplied tothe GUI 408 and displayed in the box 542 on a computer screen.

By way of example, the process of designing a decision tree for theKnowledge Base Unit 704 will be illustrated for a patent documentcharacterized by two patent indices, e.g. the indices characterizingCommercial value (CV) and Legal Strength (LS) of the patent document.For each of the chosen indices, there are introduced two configurationparameters, namely CV₁, CV₂ for CV; and LS₁, LS₂ for LS. Theseparameters are chosen so that to satisfy the following conditions:0<CV ₁ <CV ₂<1  (31)0<LS ₁ <LS ₂<1  (32)Geometrically, a CV-LS point represents a combination of the chosenindices, where the coordinates of the CV-LS point are equal to theactual values of the indices, and all possible combinations of CV and LSvalues fill in a square 750 labeled Commercial Value—Legal Strength andshown in FIG. 17A, the square 750 being referred to as a space of thepatent indices variations. The configuration parameters CV₁, CV₂, LS₁,and LS₂ divide the square 750 into a number of areas (nine sub-squares(sub-rectangles) labeled “Conclusion 1” to “Conclusion 9”) such thateach area has a meaningful interpretation with regard to the value ofthe patent document. For example, patent documents represented by CV-LSpoints within the upper right sub-square labeled “Conclusion 6” arecharacterized by patent indices whose values are close to the highestpossible values, which means that these patent documents are of highquality and therefore are of a considerable value for businesses. On thecontrary, patent documents represented by CV-LS points within the bottomleft sub-square labeled “Conclusion 8” are characterized by patentindices whose values are close to the lowest possible values, whichmeans that these patent documents are of very low quality and thereforeare of little, if at all, value for business. Similar considerationsapply to the remaining sub-squares leading to the conclusions 1-5, 7, 9,which are formulated below.

-   Conclusion 1. The patent is of a reasonable value for business. In    most circumstances, it is good enough to maintain.-   Conclusion 2. The patent is of a little value for business. When    trimming patent portfolio, consider abandoning the patent.-   Conclusion 3. The patent has a moderate value for business. In most    circumstances it is worth maintaining.-   Conclusion 4. The patent has a substantial value for businesses. It    is well worth maintaining.-   Conclusion 5. The value of the patent is questionable because of its    poor legal strength. It may be worth maintaining under special    circumstances.-   Conclusion 6. Well balanced patent of an exceptional quality. It    contributes considerably to the value of the patent portfolio. Well    worth maintaining.-   Conclusion 7. The patent is of a low value for business. In most    cases, the best course of action is to abandon it.-   Conclusion 8. The patent has little to no value at all. It is a    prime candidate for abandoning.-   Conclusion 9. Under special circumstances, this patent might have    some value for businesses and therefore might be worth maintaining.

The decision tree of the Knowledge Base Unit 704 is built by formingchains of comparisons of actual values of the patent indices CV, LS,denoted herein as CV₀, LS₀, and configuration parameters CV₁, CV₂, LS₁,and LS₂. The chains of comparisons are designed to identify to which ofsaid nine sub-squares the actual values of the patent indices belong,and to ensure that the comparisons will lead to all formulatedconclusions when numerical values of the patent indices vary within thesquare 750.

There are four basic comparisons, different combinations of which leadto different conclusions:CV_(0<CV) ₁  (33)CV₀>CV₂  (34)LS₀<LS₁  (35)LS₀>LS₂  (36)

Each comparison has only two possible outcomes, the outcomes beingeither TRUE or FALSE. On the decision tree diagram, the comparison isrepresented by a diamond with the diamond number “N” inside, and “Yes”and “No” arrows corresponding to the “TRUE” or “FALSE” outcomes, asillustrated in FIG. 17B.

A conclusion is represented on the decision tree diagram by a rectanglewith the conclusion number “M” inside as illustrated in FIG. 16C.

Each diamond is connected either to another diamond or to a conclusionrectangle. A connection to a conclusion rectangle indicates the end of achain of comparisons. The chains of comparisons are formed with theguidance of FIG. 17A in the following manner.

First, we start with determining whether the patent document underconsideration can be represented by a CV-LS point in a lower row in thesquare 750 (sub-squares “Conclusions 8, 7, 9”) by checking whether thecomparison CV₀<CV₁ (diamond 1) holds TRUE as shown in FIG. 17B.

If the outcome is “Yes”, we determine whether the patent document isrepresented by a CV-LS point in the sub-square “Conclusion 8” bychecking the comparison LS₀<LS₁ (diamond 7) holds true as shown in FIG.17D.

If the outcome is “Yes”, it means that the Conclusion 8 has beenreached, thus forming a chain of comparisons shown in FIG. 17E.

A complete decision tree 800 for the Knowledge Base Unit 704 analyzing apatent document characterized by two patent indices is shown in FIG. 18.It is designed by repeating the process described above by followingcombinations of “Yes” and “No” outcomes until all the chains ofcomparisons are explored and all conclusions are reached. The followingdesignations have been used in FIG. 18: diamond 1 corresponds to thecomparison CV₀<CV₁; diamond 2 corresponds to the comparison CV₀>CV₂;diamonds 3, 5, 7 correspond to the comparison LS₀<LS₁; and diamonds 4,6, 8 correspond to the comparison LS₀>LS₂.

The AI Unit 410 analyzes the patent indices CV and LS by walking thedecision tree 800, which is performed by the AI Engine 706. The analysisincludes comparisons of actual values of CV and LS with thecorresponding configuration parameters defined above. The comparisonsstart from the diamond 1. If the current comparison holds TRUE, then thenext comparison pointed to by the “Yes”-arrow becomes current, otherwiseit is the comparison pointed to by the “No”-arrow. For example, if thestarting comparison (diamond 1) holds TRUE, the AI Engine 706 checks thecomparison 7 (diamond 7), otherwise it checks the comparison 2 (diamond2). This process continues until the AI Unit 410 collects sufficientinformation to make a conclusion. Then the AI Unit 410 generates therelevant conclusion and stops.

If a user is interested why the AI Unit 410 has arrived at a certainconclusion, the AI Unit reveals the corresponding reason. The set ofreasons corresponding to the above formulated conclusions is shownbelow:

-   Reason 1. Everything is moderate about this patent, it has moderate    commercial potential, technical merits and legal protection.-   Reason 2. Poor legal protection and moderate chances on commercial    success make this patent of little interest for businesses.-   Reason 3. The patent has moderate value from commercial point of    view, but it provides excellent legal protection of the inventive    idea.-   Reason 4. The patent is characterized by excellent commercial    potential and reasonably good legal protection.-   Reason 5. Excellent commercial potential of this patent is    practically negated by its poor legal protection.-   Reason 6. Excellent commercial potential and outstanding legal    protection makes this patent a jewel in the patent portfolio.-   Reason 7. This patent hardly can help to generate any significant    money, and it provides only moderate legal protection for the    inventive idea.-   Reason 8. This patent should not have been filed in the first place    since it has very low commercial potential and the inventive idea is    hardly protected legally. It is a complete waste of time and money.-   Reason 9. The patent has low commercial potential, but the inventive    idea is well protected legally.

When the decision tree 800 has been generated, it is stored in the RulesDB 702 in the form of a text file. The basic comparison shown in FIG.17B, being the basic building block of the decision tree 800, isrepresented in the text file by three expressions, each recorded in aseparate line: D:  Comparison  N   Y   Nwhere “D” stands for “Diamond”, “N” indicates the number of the diamond,“Comparison N” stands for “Comparison corresponding to the diamondnumber N”, “Y” stands for “Yes”-arrow, “N” stands for “No”-arrow, and“:” is a symbol-separator, which helps to automatically distinguishbetween different parts of the expression.

Similarly, the conclusion rectangle shown in FIG. 17C is represented bythe expression:

-   -   C: Conclusion M        where C stands for “Conclusion”, and “Conclusion M” is one of        the nine conclusions introduced above determined by the number        M.

For example, the diamond 1 shown in FIG. 17B is represented in the RulesDB file as follows: D:  CV₀ < CV₁   Y   N

When two diamonds are combined together, the insertion points are in thesecond and third lines after the respective symbols “Y” and “N”. Forexample, combination of the diamonds 7 and 1, resulting in the structureshown in FIG. 17D, will be schematically expressed as follows:Combination of Diamond 1 Diamond 7 diamonds 7 and 1 D: CV₀ < CV₁ D: LS₀< LS₁ D: CV₀ < CV₁ Y + Y = YD: LS₀ < LS₁ N N Y N N

Here the insertion point is in the second line immediately after “1”since diamonds 1 and 7 are connected by the “Yes”-arrow. Adding aconclusion is performed in the similar manner. For example, the additionof the Conclusion 8, resulting in the chain of comparisons shown in FIG.17E, will be stored in the Rules DB as follows: Chain leading to Diamond1 and 7 Rectangle 8 the Conclusion 8 D: CV₀ < CV₁ D: CV₀ < CV₁ YD: LS₀ <LS₁ + C: Conclusion 8 = YD: LS₀ < LS₁ Y Y C: Conclusion 8 N N N N

The complete decision tree 800 shown in FIG. 18 is stored in the RulesDB file in the following manner:

-   D: CV₀<CV₁    -   YD: LS₀<LS₁        -   YC:Conclusion 8        -   ND: LS₀>LS₂            -   YC:Conclusion 9            -   NC:Conclusion 7-   ND: CV₀>CV₂    -   YD: LS₀<LS₁        -   YC:Conclusion 5        -   ND: LS₀>LS₂            -   YC:Conclusion 6            -   NC:Conclusion 4    -   ND: LS₀<LS₁        -   YC:Conclusion 2        -   ND: LS₀>LS₂            -   YC:Conclusion 3            -   NC:Conclusion 1

Thus, an AI system for analyzing and interpreting the value of a patentdocument characterized by two patent indices has been provided.

While the AI system described above has been illustrated with regard topatent indices characterizing Commercial Value and Legal Strength, it isunderstood that similar AI systems may be designed for analyzing patentdocuments characterized by other sets of two patent indices, e.g. theindices described above in the section “Choice of Patent Indices”.

If a patent document is characterized by more than two patent indices,or if the analysis and interpretation of patent sub-indices is required,the square 750 becomes a cube, or a hypercube, and the sub-squares ofthe square 750 become correspondingly sub-cubes or sub-hypercubes, thenumber of conclusions and their complexity increases, and the structureof the decision tree becomes more complicated. However, the principlesof generating the decision tree and storing it in the Rules DB fileremain the same as discussed above.

FIG. 19 illustrates generation of a decision tree 900 of the Knowledgebase unit 704 for analyzing a patent document characterized by threepatent indices. By way of example, the three patent indices are chosenas Technical Merit (TM), Commercial Value (CV) and Legal Strength (LS).For each of the patent indices, there are established two configurationparameters, namely TM₁, TM₂ for TM; CV₁, CV₂ for CV; and LS₁, LS₂ forLS. These parameters are chosen to satisfy the following conditions:0<TM ₁ <TM ₂<1  (37)0<CV ₁ <CV ₂<1  (38)0<LS ₁ <LS ₂<1  (39)

The analysis includes a number of comparisons of actual values of TM, CVand LS, denoted here as TM₀, CV₀, LS₀, with the correspondingconfiguration parameters defined above. The comparisons are representedin FIG. 19 by diamonds with the diamond number shown inside:

-   TM₀<TM₁—diamond 1;-   TM₀>TM₂—diamond 2;-   CV₀<CV₁—diamonds 3, 11, and 19;-   CV₀>CV₂—diamonds 4, 12, and 20;-   LS₀<LS₁—diamonds 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, 17, 21, 23, and 25; and-   LS₀>LS₂—diamonds 6, 8, 10, 14, 16, 18, 22, 24, and 26.

The comparisons start from the diamond 1. If the current comparisonholds TRUE, then the next comparison pointed to by the “Yes”-arrowbecomes current, otherwise it is the comparison pointed to by the“No”-arrow. For example, if the starting comparison (diamond 1) TM₀<TM₁holds TRUE, the AI Engine 706 checks comparison 19 (diamond 19),otherwise it checks comparison 2 (diamond 2). This process continuesuntil the AI Engine 706 collects enough information to make aconclusion. The AI Engine 706 reaches a relevant conclusion, indicatedon FIG. 18 by a rectangle, and then stops.

By way of example, a path illustrating how the AI Engine 706 reaches theconclusion 26 is described below. At diamond 1, the AI Engine 706determines that TM₀<TM₁ using the value TM₀ of the patent index TMreceived from the PQ processing unit 404 (outcome “Yes” from the diamond1), thus leading to diamond 19. At diamond 19, the AI Engine 706determines that CV₀<CV₁ using the value CV₀ of the patent index CVreceived from the PQ processing unit 404 (outcome “Yes” from the diamond19), thus leading to diamond 25. At diamond 25, the AI Engine 706determines that LS₀<LS₁ using the value LS₀ of the patent index LSreceived from the PQ processing unit 404 (outcome “Yes” from the diamond25), thus leading to conclusion 26.

Overall, for the AI system analyzing the above noted three patentindices, the AI Engine 706 is capable of reaching 27 differentconclusions, which are listed below.

Conclusion 1. The patent is of a reasonable value for business. In mostcircumstances, it is good enough to maintain.

Conclusion 2. Poor legal protection makes maintenance of the patentquestionable.

Conclusion 3. The patent is of a reasonable value for business. In mostcircumstances, it is good enough to maintain.

Conclusion 4. The patent is of a reasonable value for business. In mostcircumstances, it is good enough to maintain.

Conclusion 5. The patent is of more value for competitors than for thebusiness. Probably, it is one of the candidates for abandonment.

Conclusion 6. It is a good patent, well worth maintaining. Periodicalre-evaluation is recommended.

Conclusion 7. The patent is of a little value for businesses because ofthe lack of a significant commercial potential.

Conclusion 8. The patent is not worth maintaining. In fact, it was noteven worth filing.

Conclusion 9. The patent is of a little value for business because ofthe lack of substantial commercial potential.

Conclusion 10. The patent is of a moderate value for business.

Conclusion 11. The patent is of little value for business, except as atraining material. However, in this capacity it does not require tomaintain it.

Conclusion 12. Solid patent with moderate commercial potential.

Conclusion 13. Overall, it is a good patent, though potentiallyvulnerable to “design around” attack.

Conclusion 14. The patent may be considered as an open invitation todesign around. In this capacity, it has good chances to attractattention of competitors with big money.

Conclusion 15. Well balanced patent of an exceptional quality.

Conclusion 16. It is an excellent source of ideas for futuredevelopment, but practically useless for business.

Conclusion 17. The patent has mainly academic interest, an article in ascientific journal would be more appropriate and much less expensivealternative. However, it might be considered as an excellent source ofideas for future development.

Conclusion 18. It is an excellent source of ideas for futuredevelopment, but otherwise is practically useless for business.

Conclusion 19. The value of the patent for business is quite limited,and it may quickly become obsolete. There may or may not be reason tomaintain it, depending on circumstances. Consider frequent reviews ofthe patent, to avoid wasting money on it.

Conclusion 20. The patent mainly educates competitors in the underlyingtechnology while providing little value for the business. It may quicklybecome obsolete.

Conclusion 21. The patent might have some limited value for business inthe short term, but may quickly become obsolete. There may or may not bereason to maintain it, depending on circumstances. Consider frequentreviews of the patent, to avoid wasting money on it.

Conclusion 22. The patent has some short-term value but may quicklybecome obsolete. If you decide to keep it, frequent reviews arerecommended (e.g. every 1-2 years).

Conclusion 23. It is best referred to as a gift for competitors, big orsmall.

Conclusion 24. The patent has some short-term value but may quicklybecome obsolete. If you decide to keep it, frequent reviews arerecommended (e.g. every 2-3 years).

Conclusion 25. The patent has little value for business. There is littlereason to maintain it.

Conclusion 26. The patent has next to no value at all. Maintaining itlooks like a complete waste of money. It is a prime candidate forabandoning.

Conclusion 27. The patent has little value for business. There is littlereason to maintain it. However, it can be used as a training materialfor those who want to learn how to write patent applications.

If a user is interested to know why the AI Unit 410 has arrived at acertain conclusion, it shows a proper reason. A set of reasonscorresponding to the above noted set of conclusions is shown below.

Reason 1. Everything is moderate about this patent; it has moderatetechnical merits, moderate commercial potential, and moderate legalprotection.

Reason 2. The patent is characterized by moderate technical merits,moderate commercial potential, and poor legal protection.

Reason 3. The patent is characterized by moderate technical merits andmoderate commercial potential. Inventive idea is well protected legally.

Reason 4. The patent is characterized by moderate technical merits, highcommercial potential, moderate legal protection.

Reason 5. In spite for significant commercial value, the patent has poorlegal protection.

Reason 6. This patent has good commercial potential and adequate legalprotection. The only drawback is a moderate scale of the inventive idea.

Reason 7. Utter lack of commercial protection is the main drawback ofthis invention. Its moderate legal protection of inventive idea does notsave the situation.

Reason 8. Moderately important inventive idea is the only good thing totell about this patent. Everything else is less thenattractive—non-existent legal protection, slim chances for commercialgain.

Reason 9. Moderate inventive idea, well protected legally. However, lackof substantial commercial potential makes it a little value forbusinesses.

Reason 10. The underlying inventive idea is excellent, but legalprotection is only satisfactory. Commercial potential is moderate.

Reason 11. Excellent inventive idea, poor legal protection, and moderatechances on commercial success make this patent of little interest forbusinesses. However, it is good source of ideas for future development.

Reason 12. The patent is based on an excellent idea, well protectedlegally. The only drawback is moderate potential for commercial gain.

Reason 13. Substantial technical merits of the patent coupled with theexcellent commercial potential make it a good addition to any patentportfolio. However, its legal protection is weaker than expected, andtherefore, it can be a subject to “design around” attack.

Reason 14. It could be a precious jewel in any portfolio, being based onthe strong inventive idea and having excellent commercial potential.However, a poor legal protection kills it, making it relatively easy towork around it.

Reason 15. Everything is good about this patent. It is based on anexcellent idea, well protected legally, and enjoys an outstandingcommercial potential.

Reason 16. The patent is based on an excellent idea, and issatisfactorily protected legally. However, commercial potential is farfrom sufficient.

Reason 17. The patent is based on an excellent idea. However, it ishardly protected legally, and the prospective to profit from it looksgrim because of the far too small commercial potential.

Reason 18. The patent is based on an excellent idea, and is very wellprotected legally. However, the prospective to profit from it looks grimbecause of the far too small commercial potential.

Reason 19. The patent has a moderate commercial potential, and theinventive idea is moderately well protected legally. However, theunderlying inventive idea is rather weak.

Reason 20. The patent has a moderate commercial potential. However, theinventive idea is poorly protected legally, and is rather weak. It is,therefore, easy to design around even for a small competitor with alimited budget for R&D. Thus, the patent has more value for competitorsthan for the business itself.

Reason 21. The patent has a moderate commercial potential. The inventiveidea is well protected legally, but is rather weak. There might be foundstronger solutions in the future, making the patent obsolete.

Reason 22. The main attraction of this patent is its fantasticcommercial potential. However, its legal protection is kind of averagequality. Probably, there are many other comparable or even bettersolutions.

Reason 23. Technical merits of the invention are not significant, butcommercial potential is very good indeed. Unfortunately, legalprotection falls far behind in quality making it relatively easy to workaround it. Thus, it might make sense for competitors, big or small, tolearn from the teachings of the patent and quickly design around.

Reason 24. The inventive idea is very weak, but commercial potential isfantastic, and it is protected very well legally. Probably, there aremany other comparable or even better solutions. If a substantiallybetter solution is found, the patent can quickly become obsolete.

Reason 25. The inventive idea lacks any significance. Combined with lowcommercial value and satisfactory, at best, legal protection, it hardlygets anyone excited about.

Reason 26. The inventive idea is very weak from technical point of view.It is highly improbable to make any serious money out of it because ofseverely limited commercial potential. On top of that, the patent doesnot protect the idea properly, if at all.

Reason 27. Technical merits of the invention are questionable. There arebig doubts about its commercial potential, though it enjoys good legalprotection.

Thus, the AI system for interpreting results of patent evaluation of apatent document characterized by three patent indices has been provided.

While the AI system described above has been illustrated with regard tothe three patent indices characterizing Technical Merit, CommercialValue and Legal Strength, it is understood that similar AI systems maybe designed for analyzing patent documents characterized by other setsof three patent indices, e.g. the indices described above in the section“Choice of Patent Indices”. It is also contemplated that similarprinciples may be applied for designing AI systems suitable for theanalysis of patent documents characterized by more than three patentindices. Alternatively, simpler decision trees may be designed if thenumber of patent indices is lower, e.g. for interpreting PQ and/or MV ofthe patent document.

While the AI system described above has been implemented in the form ofa decision tree based AI system, it is understood that other types ofthe AI systems may be also used for analyzing and interpreting patentindices.

It is worth mentioning that the computer program code of the AI systemstored in a memory, when executed, may have a dual purpose. It may beused to perform a step of analyzing patent indices in addition to (orinstead of) the step of combining patent indices of the methods ofembodiments described above. Alternatively, when the AI computer programcode is stored in a computer readable memory, it becomes a part of theAI Unit 410 of the PQC 400.

Implementation Versions of the Patent Quality Calculator

There have been two versions of the Patent Quality Calculatorimplemented in the computer software code, the client-side version andthe client-server version.

The client-side version has been written entirely in JavaScript, itloads into a user's browser and if necessary, may be displayed in aseparate window on a screen. It does not need any communication with theserver, and accordingly there is no waiting between mouse clicks for theuser. This version is highly interactive, wherein any changes in theexpert's (user) input to the patent sub-indices, i.e. any changes in theposition of the active sliding objects (marbles), is immediatelyreflected in the value of PQ and in the position of the respectivemarble. The results are shown numerically and graphically.

The client-server version is written partly in JavaScript (mainly thegraphical user interface), and partly in Perl (PQ calculation, databasehandling et al). It needs communication with the server, but the valuesof the PQ and its respective indices (sub-indices) can be stored in adatabase for future reference if required, or sent over a network.

Conveniently, the PQC is used on a stand-alone computer and/or in anetwork environment, e.g. on a corporate Intranet or the Internet. Ifrequired, the computer code for executing the methods of the embodimentsmay be stored in a memory of a computer program product such as afloppy, CD-ROM, DVD or the like.

Preferably, the system for evaluating a patent document comprises acomputer, a web site for receiving an input data with regard to thepatent indices, and a program executing on this computer to determinethe PQ as a function of the patent indices.

Conveniently, a website for evaluating a patent document is provided,including means for logging on to the web site, and a link to the PatentQuality Calculator, causing the PQC to execute as presented as describedabove.

Modifications to the PQC described above may include other graphicdesigns for the interface to the Patent Calculator, including, but notlimited to, using numerical values for capturing experts' input, and/ora combination of graphical and numerical means for this purpose. Forexample, additional active and/or passive sliders may be added to thefourteen sliders 510 to 536 shown FIG. 13, such as the active slider forentering the monetary value of the etalon patent, and the passive sliderfor the monetary value of the patent under consideration calculated inaccordance with one of the expressions (1), (9), (14) or (18).

Thus, a computerized system for patent quality and monetary valueevaluation, implementing the methods for patent evaluation of theembodiments of the invention, has been provided.

The system for patent quality evaluation has the same advantages as theabove-mentioned method, as well as the additional advantages of having afriendly graphical user interface, being conveniently accessible via acorporate Intranet or the Internet, and increasing expert's efficiency.For example, experts make estimations of respective patent indicesgraphically, by pushing a sliding object along a linear scale, which ishighly intuitive and extremely effective, while the numericalexpressions of the positions of the sliding objects that areautomatically placed at the right end of the scales to help the expertsmonitor their inputs in real time. The experts are also requested toprovide their inputs with regard to the patent indices only, leaving thetask of combining the indices into the PQ (or into the indices of ahigher layer in the index hierarchy) for the computerized system toperform. As a result, such system is much less prone to errors, providesmore consistent results of patent evaluation, and substantiallyincreases the productivity of experts. An automatic analysis andinterpretation of patent indices with the aid of the AI system makes theevaluation process even more consistent, reliable and expedient.

System and Method for Forming a Team of Experts

For evaluating a large patent portfolio, an involvement of multipleexperts may be required to provide timely evaluation and to cover thenecessary areas of expertise.

Beneficially, each expert's contribution would blend seamlessly into thefinal evaluation of the portfolio as if a single expert conducted theevaluation. Approaching this ideal situation as close as possible wouldrequire selecting a team of experts, wherein each member of the team isassigned a role to ensure timely and high quality evaluation of theportfolio.

A method for forming a team of experts is illustrated by flowchart 1000in FIG. 20. It includes the following steps. Upon start (box 1002), thepatent portfolio is divided into clusters of patents (box 1004), suchthat patents in each cluster are sufficiently close to each other bysubject matter to fall within the area of expertise of a reasonablyqualified expert. Then the required number of experts for each clusteris determined, and the experts with matching expertise are assigned toeach cluster (box 1006). In order to provide consistency of evaluation,each expert is calibrated to determine his/her bias coefficient “B” asdescribed previously (box 1008), followed by the step of providing eachexpert with individualized Patent Quality Calculator, which isconfigured to compensate for the expert's bias as described earlier (box1010). Since that moment, the team is considered to be formed and readyto start evaluations.

A corresponding system 1100 for forming a team of experts is shown inFIG. 21. It comprises means 1004 for dividing a patent portfolio 1002into clusters, e.g. automatically sorting the patent portfolio byInternational classes and/or sub-classes, the clusters being labeled1106 a to 1106 n respectively. The clusters of patents 1106 a to 1106 nare supplied to a Team Coordinator, who has access to a CoordinationUnit 1108 and to the Registry of Experts 1110. The Coordination Unit1008 includes means for dividing designated experts into groups ofexperts 1114 a to 1114 b, each group being assigned to a cluster forevaluation patents within the cluster. The Coordination Unit 1008 islinked to an assignment database (the Assignment DB 1112) and to eachexpert within each group of experts 1114 a to 1114 b (please note thatfor simplicity, only links from the Coordination Unit 1108 to the groupsof experts 1114 a and 1114 b are shown instead of multiple links toindividual experts). Each expert is also linked to an assignmentdatabase (the Assignment DB 1112) to pick one of the available patentsfor evaluation, The Coordination Unit 1008 includes means for assigninga patent for evaluation to any expert within a cluster, and means forproviding experts with respective Individualized Patent QualityCalculators 400 a to 400 d, which are similar to the PQC 400 of FIG. 12,except for being bias-corrected according to the experts' personal biascoefficients stored in the Bias Coefficient database 668, thuscompensating for the bias introduced by each expert. Thus, a system forforming a team of experts ready to evaluate a patent portfolio has beenprovided.

Let us consider each step of the method 1000 and operation of the system1110 in greater detail.

The procedure of patent portfolio evaluation starts with dividing theportfolio into the clusters of patents by subject matter. At this step,the size of the clusters does not matter. The only concern is that areasonably qualified expert should be able to evaluate any patent in thecluster without the outside help.

When the size of each cluster becomes available, the number of expertsis determined, which is required for evaluation of all patents in eachcluster in a timely manner. The main concern is to balance the clustersevaluation process by ensuring that each cluster, whatever its sizemight be, is evaluated in the same time frame as any other cluster. Theapproximate number of experts can be determined by dividing the numberof patents in the cluster on the productivity of the average expert.However, this approximate number may require several adjustments, if wetake into account that large and complicated patents require more timeand effort to evaluate.

Available experts with the matching expertise and qualifications areassigned to each cluster. If the number of the available experts isinsufficient, new experts are brought in to fill the gap.

To ensure consistency of patent portfolio evaluation each expert istested to determine his/her bias coefficient as described in thesections “CALIBRATION OF AN EXPERT” and “A SYSTEM FOR DETERMINING A BIASOF AN EXPERT” above.

The next step is to provide each expert with an individualized PatentQuality Calculator, which is configured to compensate for expert's biasas described earlier.

To increase objectivity of evaluation, the Patent Quality Calculator 400provided for experts is modified to exclude all Passive Sliders 512, 522and 530, including the Patent Quality slider 510 from expert's view.This way experts are less likely to be overwhelmed by a number ofpatents of lower or higher quality they had already evaluated, whichotherwise could influence their opinions.

Thus, a system and method for forming a team of experts, suitable forevaluating a patent portfolio have been provided.

Patent Portfolio Quality Calculator (PPQC)

To aid the formed team of expert to provide timely, accurate andconsistent evaluation of the patent portfolio, a system for patentportfolio evaluation has been designed to be referred to as the PatentPortfolio Quality Calculator 1200. FIG. 22 shows units of the PatentPortfolio Quality Calculator (PPQC) 1200 and their relations. Itcomprises means for determining a bias of each expert as describedabove, and means for evaluating patent documents in the patent portfolioby said experts according to an evaluation method, which is biascorrected for each expert so that to compensate for the bias associatedwith each of said experts.

The PPQC 1200 comprises of two parts, a server side and a client side,the client side enables experts to provide their opinions electronicallyand enables clients to have access to the results of evaluation, whilethe server side provides all the processing required for patentevaluation. The system administrator has control over the assignmentsflow and experts workload. The PPQC 1200 helps the administrator andexperts to interact over a network in an orderly and organized manner.

In more detail, the PPQC 1200 comprises a Data Input Means 402 a to 402n for logging onto a website 1204 by Experts #1 to #N respectively, thewebsite comprising a link to a Login Unit 1205, including anAuthentication unit 1206 and respective Registries of Clients andExperts 1212 and 1214, the Login unit 1205 providing authentication ofusers and their access to the PPQC 1200. The PPQC further comprises anExperts Unit 1208, which provides experts with the means necessary toevaluate patents, and an Administration Unit 1210, which provides meansfor managing experts' evaluation activities and keeping track of variousstages of the evaluation process, both the Experts Unit 1206 and theAdministration Unit 1210 having access through the Authentication Unit1206. The Experts Unit 1208 provides each expert with the followingmeans:

-   -   means for getting acquainted with the current list of patents        assigned for review by the administrator;    -   means for choosing one of the available patents for evaluation;    -   means for filling-in the patent evaluation template until it is        ready for submission;    -   means for saving the patent evaluation (finished or not) in a        database for further consideration.

The Administration Unit 1210 allows users with administrative privilegesto manage experts effectively, to keep track of various stages of theevaluation process and to ensure timely delivery of completedevaluations to a user accessible database. The Administration Unit 1210provides an administrator with the following means:

-   -   means for getting acquainted with the current list of active        experts, and the current list of patents under evaluation and        their status;    -   means for assigning a patent for evaluation to one of the        experts;    -   means for checking a workload of any expert;    -   means for checking patents assigned for evaluation to any given        expert and their status;    -   means for checking status of any patent evaluation;    -   means for reviewing any patent evaluation whether finished or        not;    -   means for forwarding a patent evaluation, when it is ready, to        the user accessible database.

Each expert has access to an individualized PQC 400, which is biascorrected to compensate for the bias of the expert. The individualizedPQC 400 comprises one of the Data Input Means 402 a to 402 n, a PQProcessing Unit 404 receiving a bias coefficient of an expert from theBias Coefficient database (DB) 668 and performing calculations of the PQas described above, the AI Unit 410 of FIG. 12, and a GUI 408 (notshown).

The PPQC 1200 includes the following databases: a Registry of Clients1212, a Registry of Experts 1214, an Assignment database (DB) 1216, anEvaluation DBT 1218, an Evaluation DB 1220, and a Client Portfolios DB1222.

The Registry of Clients 1212 and the Registry of Experts 1214 databasescontain records regarding clients and experts respectively, who areallowed to use the PPQC 1200, their passwords and privileges, e.g. anadministrator or an expert. The Registry of Clients 1212 and theRegistry of Experts 1214 are accessible by the administrator through theAdministration Unit 1210.

The Assignment database 1216 contains lists of patents assigned by theadministrator to each expert for evaluation, and status of the assignedpatents, e.g. waiting for evaluation, being worked on, and ready forsubmission. This database is accessible by experts through the ExpertsUnit 1208, and by the administrator through the Administration Unit1210.

The Evaluation DBT 1218 contains patent evaluations still being workedon, and those considered by experts as ready, but still to be approvedby the administrator. It is accessible by the experts through theExperts Unit and through the individualized PQC 400 (through the PQProcessing Unit 404 and the AI Unit 410), and by the administratorthrough the Administration Unit 1210.

The Evaluation DB 1220 is the main database where final versions ofindividual patent evaluations are stored, waiting for a client'srequest. Optionally, this database is accessible by the registered usersof the system listed in the Registry of Clients 1212 and Registry ofExperts 1214.

The Client Portfolios DB 1222 is the database containing evaluation ofpatent portfolios, which are formed from selected individual patentevaluations. This database is accessible by the administrator throughthe Administration Unit 1210, and by clients listed in the Registry ofClients 1212.

It is contemplated that the number of databases may be reduced, ifrequired, provided the databases are suitable for storing the necessaryinformation. For example, the Registry of Clients 1212 and the Registryof Experts 1214 may be stored in one database. Similarly, the EvaluationDBT 1218, the Evaluation DB 1220, the Clients portfolios DB 1222 andoptionally the Assignment DB 1216 may form another database.Alternatively, additional databases may be added if needed. For example,separate databases for storing results of evaluation of patentportfolios of different clients may be introduced instead of or inaddition to the Clients Portfolios DB 1222.

The PPQC 1200 further includes a Portfolio Visualization Unit 1226,which provides visualization of the results of the portfolio reviewsupplied from the Clients portfolios DB 1222.

The PPQC 1200 operates as follows. An expert (e.g. any of the Experts #1to #N) accesses the PPQC 1200 through the web site 1204, where he/shegoes through the authentication procedure via the Authentication Unit121 and verification whether the expert is registered in the Registry ofExperts 1214. Once the access to the PPQC has been granted, the expertgets access to the assignment DB 1216 through the Experts Unit 1208,where he/she can look through the list of current patents assigned tohim/her for evaluation by the administrator. If the list of assignmentsis not empty, the expert selects a patent for evaluation and startspopulating the evaluation template (which will be illustrated in detailbelow in FIG. 25). When the expert is requested to provide his/her inputwith regard to a number of patent indices required for determining thePatent Quality of the patent, the expert is provided with theindividualized Patent Quality Calculator 400 which is bias corrected tocompensate for the bias of the expert. As it has been mentioned above,the individualized PQC 400 comprises one of the data Input Means #1 to#N, the PQ Processing Unit 404 that takes into account the BiasCoefficient for the expert from the Bias Coefficient DB 668, the AI Unit410, and a GUI 408 (not shown in FIG. 22). The results of the patentevaluation, whether finished or not, are stored in the Evaluation DBT1218, which is available to the administrator through the AdministrationUnit 1210. The administrator looks through the evaluations submitted tothe Evaluation DBT, and those of them that are completed and approved bythe Administrator, are moved to the Evaluation DB 1220 for storingevaluations belonging to different clients. Conveniently, the evaluationof the patent portfolio belonging to a particular client (which issub-set of the evaluations from the Evaluation DB 1220) is stored in aseparate Client Portfolio Database (DB) 1222, accessible by therespective client through the web site 1204. Alternatively, the resultsof the patent portfolio evaluation may be sent to the client via anetwork, e.g. via e-mail. If needed, the analysis of the client'sportfolio is further enhanced by the Portfolio Visualization Unit 1226,where the results of the portfolio evaluation are presented in agraphical and/or color coded form. The details of operation of thePortfolio Visualization Unit 1226 will be described in detail below.

A flow chart 1250 shown in FIG. 23 illustrates the structure andoperation of the Authentication Unit 1205, the Administration Unit 1210,the Experts Unit 1208, and the PQ Processing Unit 404 of FIG. 22 in moredetail.

As soon as the PPQC 1200 is invoked from the web site 1204 through aHTML-link, a user's request is directed to the “PQ 0” script. Thepurpose of the script is to open a new session and to register the userin order the PPQC 1200 could recognize the user during subsequentservice requests. This ensures uninterrupted communication with the userin an orderly manner for the session duration. The script checks theinput data validity and normally sends the user an invitation toidentify himself through a Login Name and Password screen. If somethingis wrong, the user is redirected back to the calling web site 1204 asshown by reference numeral 1259. The Login and Password information isprocessed by another block “PQ 1”.

The “PQ 1” block checks that the user is permitted to use the PPQC 1200,determines the level of his access privileges (e.g. an administrator, anexpert or a client), and determines whether the list of assignments isnot empty. There are four possible outcomes of the PQ 1 operation:

-   -   1. The user is not permitted to the PPQC 1200 (wrong password or        unknown login name). In this case, a new invitation to provide        the login information is sent to the user, giving him a chance        to enter correct login information. The PQ 1 will process new        data, if any. This is illustrated by a loop 1260 in FIG. 23.    -   2. The user is permitted to the PPQC 1200 and identified as an        expert, but there are no assignments waiting for him to work on.        In this case, the “PQ 1” block informs the user about the        current situation and asks the user to confirm his understanding        of the situation. The confirmation is directed for processing to        block “PQ 3”.    -   3. The user is permitted to the system, identified as an expert,        and there is at least one assignment (a patent evaluation)        waiting for him to work on. If the user has already started to        work on a patent evaluation but not finished it yet, this and        only this assignment will be available to this expert. No other        assignments, if any, will be shown to the user to choose from.        Patent evaluations already submitted to the administrator, when        they are ready, will also not be shown to the expert, because        there is no need to work upon them. If all assignments are new,        the whole list of them will be shown to the expert to choose        from. The “PQ 2” block will process the expert's choice.    -   4. The user is permitted to the system and identified as an        administrator. The system quickly gathers the current        statistics, and shows it to the administrator in an aggregated        form. For example, the “PQ 1” block shows how many patent        evaluations are ready, how many of patent evaluations are in        progress, and how many are waiting to be worked upon. The “PQ 1”        waits for an indication from the administrator if he/she would        like to know certain statistics in more detail. The        administrator can request more information about the status of        the patent evaluations assigned to a particular expert, or more        information about a particular patent evaluation regardless to        which expert it has been assigned. The block “PQ 4” will process        the administration choice.

Block “PQ 3” just redirects the user to the Web site 1204 or back to theblock “PQ 1”.

The purpose of the block “PQ 2” is to generate a template of aparticular patent evaluation requested by an expert. First, it looksinto the Evaluation DBT 1218 trying to find a corresponding record. Ifthe record is found, all available information is used to fill in anempty template. If not, the empty template is prepared. This template(empty or not) is sent to the expert to work on it further. Thefilled-in template is to be processed by the block “PQ 5”.

The block “PQ 5” accepts the evaluation template, partially orcompletely filled-in by the expert. This is where the input data enteredby the expert is analyzed, and patent indices and patent quality itselfare calculated. All the data, received from the expert and calculated bythe individualized PQC 400 are put in the database Evaluation DBT 1218.Then block “PQ 5” looks through the list of assignments, trying todetermine whether there is something for the expert to further work on.If the list of assignments is empty, the user is informed about thesituation and asked to confirm his understanding of it. The confirmationis directed to the block “PQ 3” for processing. If the list ofassignments is not empty, the block “PQ 5” displays the list and waitsfor the expert to choose a new assignment. The block “PQ 3” will processthe expert's choice again, and the next cycle “PQ 1”-“PQ 2”-“PQ 5”-“PQ3” starts all over again until either the list of assignments becomesempty, or the expert quits from the evaluation process.

The block “PQ 4” gathers a detailed statistics regarding the evaluationprocess to the administrator, i.e. either a list of available expertsand their current workload, or a list of patents accepted for evaluationby experts. In either case, the list is sent to the administrator tochoose from, but different scripts will process this list. The block “PQ7” processes the list of patents, and the block “PQ 6” processes thelist of experts.

The block “PQ 7” looks in the Evaluation DBT 1218 database for a patentevaluation template specified by the administrator, generates a patentevaluation (even if data are incomplete) and sends it to theadministrator. The administrator's response is to be processed by theblock “PQ 9”. The PPQC 1200 distinguishes between ready andnot-finished-yet evaluations, and limits the choice of administratoractions accordingly. If the evaluation is ready, the PPQC 1200 allowsthe administrator to transfer the evaluation to the client accessibledatabase, if the administrator decides so. If it is not finished yet,the administrator does not have such an option.

The block “PQ 9” does one of the two actions depending on theadministrator's instructions:

-   -   1. It looks whether the administrator considers the current        patent review to be ready for submission to the client        accessible database. If yes, the block “PQ 9” moves the        evaluation there.    -   2. It prepares an updated list of patents (i.e. taking into        account new developments) and sends it to the administrator to        choose from.

The expert's choice is processed again by the block “PQ 7”, and the nextcycle “PQ 4”-“PQ 7”-“PQ 9”-“PQ 7”-“PQ 4” starts all over again untileither the list of assignments becomes empty, or the administrator bailsout of the reviewing the situation with patents.

The block “PQ 6” shows to the administrator the list of experts tochoose from. When the administrator decides which expert he wants toreview, the administrator's choice is sent to the block “PQ 8” forprocessing.

Blocks “PQ 8” and “PQ 10” perform essentially the same job as blocks “PQ7” and “PQ 9” respectively, but taking into account only patentsassigned to a particular expert for evaluation, as opposed to allavailable patents.

FIGS. 24A to 24F illustrate various screens of the Patent PortfolioCalculator 1200 of FIG. 22. FIG. 24A shows a Login screen, FIG. 24Bshows a list of patents available for evaluation to a particular expert,FIG. 24C shows a Current statistics on how many experts are involved inthe evaluation process, and how many patents are at various stages ofthe evaluation process, i.e. ready, being evaluated, waiting forevaluation, and the total number of patents to be evaluated. FIG. 24Dshows a more detailed statistics for various experts and theirassignments, FIG. 24E shows a detailed workload for a selected expert,i.e. how many patents have been already evaluated by this expert, howmay patents are being evaluated and waiting for evaluation by thisexpert. FIG. 24F shows a detailed aggregated statistics by patentsevaluated by all currently involved experts, and patent status, i.e. howmany patents in total have been evaluated by all experts, how many arebeing evaluated by all currently involved experts and how many arewaiting to be evaluated.

Diagrams 1300, 1310 and 1320 on FIGS. 25A to 25C show respectively anupper section, a middle section and a lower section of a sample patentevaluation (an evaluation template) of a patent document as it ispresented to the administrator, the middle section 1310 including activesliders of the Patent Quality Calculator 400 of FIG. 12, which is biascorrected to the expert evaluating the patent, and the GUI 408 of FIG.13. The evaluation template includes a number of input boxes, text areasand sliders for patent indices to be filled in by experts. When thepatent evaluation, which is partially or completely filled in, ispresented to the administrator, the positions of marbles on all slidersof the middle section 1310 are frozen so that the administrator canreview them but not change. In contrast, when the evaluation template ispresented to an expert, the middle section presents a fully functioningPQC 400. The lower section 1320 of the evaluation template, as it ispresented to the administrator, shows a conclusion (either produced byan expert, and/or generated by the AI Unit 410 as described above) alongwith the value of the PQ, and values of the TM, CV and LS patentindices.

When the evaluation template is presented to an expert, the lowerportion of the template is slightly modified so that to exclude theresults displayed on the active sliders of the PQC 400, i.e. to excludethe combined indices TM, CV and LS and the final value of the PQ, inorder not to influence experts' opinion unnecessary. This ensures moreconsistency in evaluation of patents. A modified “Conclusion” box 1330of the lower section 1320 of the patent evaluation as it is presented toan expert is shown in FIG. 25D.

Thus, a method and system for patent portfolio evaluation have beenprovided.

Visualization of the Patent Quality of an Individual Patent and of aPatent Portfolio

The numerical value of the Patent Quality, coupled with conclusionsprovided by the AI Unit 410 gives users valuable information for makingan informed decision regarding the patent under evaluation. However, itrequires a certain amount of time and effort to get familiar with thisinformation. Alternatively, for a preliminary familiarization with theresults of the patent evaluation, i.e. just to have a general idea aboutquality of the patent, it might be enough to take a glance at the PatentQuality slider 510 of the GUI 408 to note the position of the marble onthe scale 510 b.

However, when multiple patents have to be evaluated quickly, this methodbecomes inconvenient as the number of patents grows. For example, whenlooking through the catalog of patents to select a patent for a detailedconsideration, there is just not enough available screen space todisplay the Patent Quality scale against each item in the catalog.

Accordingly, there is a need for a simple, quick and virtuallyeffortless way to get a general idea about quality of an individualpatent, a group of patents, or entire patent portfolio.

To solve this problem, a number of graphical representations of theresults of a patent evaluation have been developed. The PortfolioVisualization Unit 1226 analyzes the evaluation results for a patentportfolio and presents them in a graphical form for easier comprehensionand familiarization with the evaluation results.

In one form of graphical representation, the number of patents havingsubstantially the same Patent Quality value are determined and thendepicted in the form of a bar in a bar graph. An ideal patent portfoliowould contain only patents with Patent Quality equal to 1, while acompletely useless patent portfolio would have only patents whose valueis equal or close to zero. The bar graphs corresponding to these twoextreme situations are shown in FIGS. 26A and 26B for the patentportfolio including 164 patents.

In real life situations, the graph bars illustrating patent portfoliosmay and will look differently, including patents distributed over thewhole range of the Patent Quality index variations. For example, thebars graphs shown in FIGS. 26C and 26D illustrate patent portfolios oflow quality and high quality respectively. The patent portfolio of FIG.26C contains relatively large proportion of low quality patents, whereasthe bulk of the patents of the patent portfolio on FIG. 26D concentrateson the high end of the patent quality scale. It means that the patentportfolio of FIG. 26C is of lower quality than the patent portfolio ofFIG. 26D.

Thus, the shape of the corresponding bar graph allows to estimate thequality of the patent portfolio visually and quickly.

Numerically, the Patent Portfolio Quality (PPQ) can be calculated usingthe following formula: $\begin{matrix}{{PPQ} = \frac{{n_{1} \cdot {PQ}_{1}} + {n_{2} \cdot {PQ}_{2}} + {\ldots\quad{n_{N} \cdot {PQ}_{N}}}}{N}} & (40)\end{matrix}$where n_(i)—total number of patents with Patent Quality PQ_(i); i=, . .. , N; N—total number of patents in the patent portfolio.

The monetary value of the portfolio (AVPP) is the sum of the monetaryvalues of individual patents, determined according to the formula (18):$\begin{matrix}{{MVPP} = {\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{M}\quad{\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N_{j}}\quad{{MVCP}_{i} \cdot \frac{1 - B_{j}}{{{- 2} \cdot B_{j}} + {\left( {1 + B_{j}} \right) \cdot \left( {\frac{K_{1}}{x_{1i}} + \frac{K_{2}}{x_{2i}} + \ldots + \frac{K_{n}}{x_{ni}}} \right)}}}}}} & (41)\end{matrix}$where M—number of experts on the team; N_(j)—number of patents evaluatedby the j-th expert; MVCP_(i)—monetary value of the i-th Etalon Patent;B_(j)—bias coefficient of the j-th expert; x_(ni)—numerical evaluationof the n-th feature of the i-th patent.

In another form of graphical representation of the results of a patentportfolio evaluation, for patents characterized by three patent indicesor less, e.g. as described in the section “CHOICE OF PATENT INDICES”above, we introduce a system of coordinates, with the number of axesbeing equal to the number of patent indices. Each patent index isassociated with one of the axes so that a geometrical point withcoordinates equal to the numerical values of the corresponding patentindices visually represents the quality of the patent. All pointscorresponding to all possible combinations of the patent indices form asquare, if two Patent Indices characterize the patent, or a cube, ifthree patent indices are involved. The position of the point within thesquare or cube alone provides valuable information about quality of thepatent. For example, in the case of the square formed by patent indicesof Commercial Value and Legal Strength similar to that shown in FIG.17A, the point in the vicinity of the upper right corner would representa high quality patent. Repeating the procedure described above for allthe patents in the patent portfolio, we get a number of points scatteredaround a square (or a cube), possibly non-uniformly, i.e. the averagedensity of the points may differ from place to place. These differencesin the patent's density may form a certain pattern, which we will referto as the patent portfolio structure. For example, three patentportfolios 1500, 1510 and 1520, depicted in FIGS. 27A, 27B and 27Crespectively, have distinct patent portfolio structures that have beenmade very simple, for illustrative purposes, and represent a highquality, average quality, and low quality portfolios respectively. Inreal life situations, a patent portfolio structure may not necessarilybe that distinct and transparent.

Thus, in this form of graphical representation of a patent or a patentportfolio a position of the point in the patent indices system ofcoordinates, or a shape and a pattern formed by multiple patent pointsin the respective system of coordinates provides visualization of thequality of a patent or a patent portfolio.

Color Coding of the Patent Quality

In yet another form of graphical representation of the results of apatent evaluation, we introduce color coding of patents, wherein colorsare in the correspondence with the quality of the patents. Conveniently,a visible part of the light spectrum is used to visually represent thePatent Quality so that, e.g. low quality patents are associated withdifferent shades of the purple color, whereas high quality patents areassociated with different shades of the red color. Accordingly, averagequality patents will be assigned different shades of blue, green andyellow colors.

Assuming that the visible part of the spectrum is occupying a wavelengthrange of [λ_(min), λ_(max)], and the Patent Quality varies in the rangeof [PQ_(min), PQ_(max)], the formula for the wavelength λ₀ correspondingto a specific value of the Patent Quality PQ₀ is as follows:$\begin{matrix}{\lambda_{0} = {\lambda_{\min} + {\frac{\lambda_{\max} - \lambda_{\min}}{{PQ}_{\max} - {PQ}_{\min}} \cdot \left( {{PQ}_{0} - {PQ}_{\min}} \right)}}} & (42)\end{matrix}$

Once the wavelength λ₀ corresponding to the Patent Quality PQ₀ of aselected patent has been determined, the corresponding color label isgenerated to graphically display the Patent Quality of the patent to auser. The label may be generated on a computer screen of a computer,e.g. the computer storing the PQC 400 in its memory, and/or the labelmay be printed on paper by using a general purpose printer, or aspecialized label printer, e.g. QLS-8100 XE manufactured by QuickLabelSystems Inc., or printed on any other media, e.g. to be affixed to apaper folder. Conveniently, the PQC 400 is connected to the labelprinter and additionally programmed so that to provide correspondencebetween the PQ and the color, e.g. in accordance with the expression(36). Within the reasonable limits, the size and shape of the label maygreatly vary as long as they allow a user to grasp the color of thelabel easily. In practical terms, the size of the label may vary from afew millimeters to a several decimeters or larger, e.g. on posters orbooth presentations at trade shows etc. In the computer catalog examplediscussed above, it is hardly a problem to find several millimeters ofthe screen space to place such color labels against respective databaserecords.

While the correspondence between the quality of the patent and its colorhas been determined by the expression (42), it is understood that otherarrangements between the Patent Quality value and the color are alsopossible. For example, the color coding may be done in a reverse ordercompared to the expression (42), wherein low quality patents are colorcoded with s different shades of the red color, and high quality patentswill correspond to different shades of the purple color.

When a patent is represented by a point in the respective system ofcoordinates formed by patent indices axes, e.g. as shown in FIGS. 27A to27C, the addition of the color to the point according to the value of λ₀determined earlier greatly improves and facilitates the visualrepresentation of the patent quality, thus allowing to grasp the qualityof the patent quicker and with less effort. This is true for the numberof patent indices equal to one, two, or three, but in the case of threepatent indices, color coding has an additional advantage of becoming asubstitute of a fourth coordinate (the Patent Quality itself), thusallowing to visualize the value of the Patent Quality (the value of thefourth coordinate) in a three dimensional space, which would not bepossible otherwise.

Color-coding of the quality of patents becomes even more important whena patent portfolio is under evaluation. In real life situations, patentportfolio structure may not necessarily be distinct, which makes patentportfolio analysis without the color coding technique more difficult. Insuch cases, color-coding greatly helps to emphasize, or even reveal, thepatterns, simplifying the portfolio analysis. It also makes it mucheasier and quicker to get a general impression about the portfoliostructure. For illustrative purposes, FIG. 28 shows a color codedvisualization 1530 of an exemplary patent portfolio, wherein differentcolors are represented by different shades of grey color, namely purplecolor is substituted by black color, yellow and green colors aresubstituted by grey color, and red color is substituted by while color.This has been done for illustrative purposes only and for making blackand white reproduction of drawings prepared for the USPTO easier. Thus,low quality patents are represented by black points (small circles), andhigher quality patents are represented by grey points, which turn intoalmost white points when the quality of patents increases further.

In a three dimensional space, when a third patent index, e.g. ofTechnical Merit, is added, the shape of the surface containing pointsrepresenting Patent Quality of patents in the patent portfolio, and adistribution of the colors assigned to the points across the surfacewill vary, but will give a quick visual representation of the quality ofthe portfolio as a whole depending on which color (or colors) prevail onthe surface. It is worth mentioning once more, that the introduction ofcolor as a representation of Patent Quality allows to provide a visualrepresentation of a fourth coordinate, i.e. of three patent indices andthe PQ in a three dimensional space, which is impossible to do withordinary graphical means, or would require to find another way ofrepresenting a fourth dimension in a three dimensional space.

While different colors have been assigned to patent documents havingdifferent value of the PQ, alternatively, it is possible to assign thesame color to a portion of the patent portfolio, having patent documentswhose PQ values are within a selected range of the PQ value variations.For example, patent documents having their PQ value within [PQ_(min),P₁] may be color coded with a blue color, patent documents having theirPQ value within [PQ₁, P₂] may be color coded with a yellow color, andpatent documents having their PQ value within [P₂, PQ_(max)] may becolor coded with a red color. It is understood that any number of thepatent portfolio portions that are color-coded by different colors maybe created as required.

In one more form of graphical representation of the results of patentevaluation, the color characterizing the value of the patent documentmay be conveniently generated based on values of patent indicescharacterizing the patent document. This form of graphicalrepresentation may be used in conjunction with the AI system of the AIUnit 410 described above. A visualization of the value of the patentdocument is performed as follows. Areas (sub-squares) of the square 750on FIG. 17A, corresponding to different conclusions labeled Conclusion 1to Conclusion 9, are assigned colors such that at least one said areahas a color, which is different from the colors of other areas, and thepatent document is characterized by the color, which is the same as thecolor of the area where the patent indices characterizing the patentdocument belong. Advantageously, different areas of the square 750 willhave different colors. Thus, all patent documents belonging to the samearea will have the same color, while the patent portfolio as a wholewill be characterized by a number of colors, which are associated withthe conclusions generated by the AI system, or, in other words,associated with the areas within the space of variations of the patentindices, which have meaningful interpretations with regard to the valueof the patent document. When the patent document is characterized bythree patent indices, a similar procedure may be applied to a threedimensional coloring of the cube corresponding to variations of threepatent indices, and to respective sub-cubes within the cube associatedwith meaningful interpretations of the value of the patent document andcorresponding to the Conclusions 1 to 27 described above.

In a modification to the above form of graphical representation of theresults of patent evaluation, the colors of the areas associated withthe conclusions are assigned as follows, which will be illustrated byway of example for the patent documents having three patent indices.First, the area (sub-cube) to be colored is selected, and then a patentdocument whose patent indices belong to the selected area is chosen,e.g. the document whose patent indices are substantially in the centerof the selected area, e.g. in the middle of the selected sub-cube. Thevalues of patent indices of this selected patent document are used ascorresponding Red, Green, and Blue values in the known RGB color modelwidely used in computer graphics, see e.g. a handbook “Principles ofDigital Image Synthesis” by Andrew Glassner published by Morgan-Kaufman,San Francisco 1995, articles on “Education for the Colour industry”available at http://www.colourware.co.uk/start.htm, a lecture by Nan C.Schaller, a professor of Computer Science Department at RochesterInstitute of technology, posted at http://www.cs.rit.edu/˜ncs/, a JavaApplet implementing a Graphic RGB Calculator available athttp://colorpro.com/info.tools.rgbcalc.htm#TOP, an article “Where'spurple? Or, how to plot colours properly on a computer screen” availableat http://casa.colorado.edu/˜ajsh/colour/rainbow.html, and documentsavailable at the website of International Color Consortium athttp://www.color.org. As a result, various intensities of Red, Green andBlue colors, corresponding to the values of the patent indices of theselected patent document within the selected area, when mixed together,produce the color, which will be assigned to the selected area.Beneficially, all patent documents within the selected area will beassociated with the same color. Other areas will have different colors,corresponding to their own RGB values and respective RGB color mixtures.Instead of the RGB color model, which is often referred to as asubtractive color model used for computer visualization, and alternativeadditive color model using a CMY (Cyan, Magenta, Yellow) colors may alsobe used for printing visualization. For example, to correspond to theabove RGB values selection, the intensities of Cyan, Magenta and Yellowcolors may be chosen so that Cyan=1.0—Red, Magenta=1.0—Green, andYellow=1.0—Blue. An improved CMYK (Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, Key), whereina black (key) color added may be used for printing purposes. Other colormodels used in computer graphics and/or printing industry may be alsoused for color visualization of values of patent documents on a computerscreen or on paper, e.g. by using sRGB, HSV (Hue, Saturation, Value),HLS (Hue, Lightness, Saturation), or device independent color models(spaces) such as XYZ model, L*u*v* model, or L*a*b* model, the detailsof which are described, e.g. in the paper “Color and Color managementSystems” published by Apple Computers, May 27, 2004 and available athttp://developer.apple.com/documentation/GraphicsImaging/Conceptual/csintro/.The majority of the described color models use three or four inputcomponents to produce a color, thus being conveniently suitable forcolor visualization of patent documents characterized by three or fourpatent indices.

If the patent document is characterized by less than three patentindices, the procedure of assigning the color to the selected areaaccording to the RGB (Red,Green,Blue) color model or the CMY(Cyan,Magenta,Yellow) color model will be similar except for one or twocolors being excluded from the respective RGB or CMY color models whenthe patent document is characterized by two or one patent indicesrespectively. As a result, the color coding will represent shades of twocolor mixtures only (in case of two patent indices), or just differentshades of one color (in the case of one patent index).

It is contemplated that color coding or other graphical representationsmay be applied to an individual patent (when applicable), or to a patentportfolio in a manner described above. When applied to the individualpatent, the PQC 400 may be enhanced with a visualization unit (notshown) similar to the Portfolio visualization Unit 1226, which wouldhave a similar structure and operation, with the simplification that itwill apply to the individual patent instead of the patent portfolio.

The color visual representation of patents according to their monetaryvalue can be also done in a similar manner, e.g. by providing acorrespondence between a color and a monetary value of a patent, orbetween selected colors and ranges of monetary values of patents in thepatent portfolio.

Thus, a visual representation of the results of patent qualityevaluation has been provided.

Although specific embodiments of the invention have been described indetail, it will be apparent to one skilled in the art that variationsand modifications to the embodiments may be made within the scope of thefollowing claims.

1. A method for evaluating a patent document, comprising the steps of:(a) introducing a set of one or more patent indices, characterizingdifferent aspects of the patent document; and (b) combining said patentindices into a Patent Quality index (the PQ), characterizing value ofthe patent document, according to a non-linear function, which ismonotonous, continuous and bounded on the interval of variation of thepatent indices.
 2. A method as described in claim 1, wherein the step(a) comprises introducing a hierarchy of patent indices, wherein each ofthe patent indices is further characterized by its respective patentsub-indices.
 3. A method as described in claim 2, wherein the step (b)comprising combining said patent sub-indices into the respective patentindices, the combining of the sub-indices being performed according toone of the following: (i) according to a linear function; and (ii)according to a non-linear function, which is monotonous continuous andbounded on the interval of variation of the patent sub-indices.
 4. Amethod as described in claim 2, wherein the step (a) comprisesintroducing a hierarchy of patent indices having M layers, the 1st layercorresponding to the PQ, wherein each of the patent indices of a layerin the hierarchy except for the M-th layer (indices of a higher layer),is further characterized by its respective patent sub-indices (indicesof a lower layer).
 5. A method as described in claim 4, wherein the step(b) comprises combining said patent indices of the lower layer (k+1)into the respective patent indices of the higher layer (k), wherein k=2,. . . M, according to one of the following: (i) according to a linearfunction; and (ii) according to a non-linear function, which ismonotonous continuous and bounded on the interval of variation of thepatent sub-indices.
 6. A method as described in claim 5, wherein thestep (a) comprises assigning numerical values to the patent indices ofthe lowest M-th layer only, and the step (b) comprises combining theassigned numerical values into the respective indices of higher layersand into the PQ automatically.
 7. A method as described in claim 1,wherein the step (a) comprises assigning numerical values to the patentindices, and the step (b) comprises combining the assigned values intoto the PQ automatically.
 8. A method as described in claim 7, whereinthe assigning of the numerical values to the patent indices is performedby experts by comparing each of the patent indices with the respectiveindex of an Etalon Patent (EP), the EP being a patent devoted to thesame problem as the patent document, although possibly providing adifferent solution, and characterized with the same set of patentindices, all of the patent indices of the EP being equal to theirmaximal values.
 9. A method as described in claim 1, wherein the step(b) comprises combining the patent indices into the PQ according to thenon-linear function, which satisfies the following rule: (i) for anypatent index, higher values of the Patent Quality correspond to highervalues of said patent index.
 10. A method as described in claim 9,wherein the step (b) comprises combining the patent indices into the PQaccording to the non-linear function, which further satisfies thefollowing rule: (ii) when values for all patent indices tend to thesubstantially same value of “p”, then the Patent Quality would tendsubstantially to the value calculated as if the Patent Quality dependedsolely upon a single index whose value is equal to “p”.
 11. A method asdescribed in claim 9, wherein the step (b) comprises combining thepatent indices into the PQ according to the non-linear function, whichfurther satisfies the following rule: (iii) when a value of any patentindex tends substantially to its minimal value, then Patent Qualityvalue also tends substantially to its minimal value; and wherein theindices introduced in the step (a) have been chosen such that to satisfythe rule (iii).
 12. A method as described in claim 1, wherein the step(b) comprises combining the patent indices into the PQ according to thenon-linear function, which is decreasing and further satisfies thefollowing rule: (iii) when a value of any patent index tendssubstantially to its minimal value, then Patent Quality value tendssubstantially to its maximal value; and wherein the indices introducedin the step (a) have been chosen such that to satisfy the rule (iii).13. A method as described in claim 10, wherein the step (b) comprisescombining the patent indices into the PQ according to the non-linearfunction, which further satisfies the following rule: (iii) when a valueof any patent index tends substantially to its minimal value, then thePatent Quality value also tends substantially to its minimal value; andwherein the indices introduced in the step (a) have been chosen suchthat to satisfy the rule (iii).
 14. A method for evaluating a patentdocument, comprising the steps of: (a) introducing a set of one or morepatent indices, characterizing different aspects of the patent document;and (b) combining said patent indices into a Patent Quality index (aPQ), characterizing value of the patent document, according to afunction, which is monotonous, continuous and bounded on the interval ofvariation of the patent indices, the function is linear if the patentdocument if characterized by one index only, and non-linear if thepatent document is characterized by two or more patent indices.
 15. Amethod as described in claim 14, wherein the step (a) comprisesintroducing a hierarchy of patent indices, wherein each of the patentindices is further characterized by its respective patent sub-indices,and the step (b) comprising combining said patent sub-indices into therespective patent indices, the combining of the sub-indices beingperformed according to one of the following: (i) according to a linearfunction; and (ii) according to a non-linear function, which ismonotonous continuous and bounded on the interval of variation of thepatent sub-indices.
 16. A method as described in claim 14, wherein thestep (b) comprises combining the patent indices into the PQ according tothe non-linear function that satisfies the following rule: (i) for anypatent index, higher values of the Patent Quality correspond to highervalues of said patent index.
 17. A method as described in claim 16,wherein the step (b) comprises combining the patent indices into the PQaccording to the non-linear function, which further satisfies thefollowing rule: (ii) when values for all patent indices tend to thesubstantially same value of “p”, then the Patent Quality would tendsubstantially to the value calculated as if the Patent Quality dependedsolely upon a single index whose value is equal to “p”.
 18. A method asdescribed in claim 16, wherein the step (b) comprises combining thepatent indices into the PQ according to the non-linear function, whichfurther satisfies the following rule: (iii) when a value of any patentindex tends substantially to its minimal value, then Patent Qualityvalue also tends substantially to its minimal value; and wherein theindices introduced in the step (a) have been chosen such that to satisfythe rule (iii).
 19. A method as described in claim 14, wherein the step(b) comprises combining the patent indices into the PQ according to thenon-linear function, which is decreasing and further satisfies thefollowing rule: (iii) when a value of any patent index tendssubstantially to its minimal value, then Patent Quality value tendssubstantially to its maximal value; and wherein the indices introducedin the step (a) have been chosen such that to satisfy the rule (iii).20. A method as described in claim 17, wherein the step (b) comprisescombining the patent indices into the PQ according to the non-linearfunction, which further satisfies the following rule: (iii) when a valueof any patent index tends substantially to its minimal value, thenPatent Quality value also tends substantially to its minimal value; andwherein the indices introduced in the step (a) have been chosen suchthat to satisfy the rule (iii).
 21. A method as described in claim 1,wherein the step (a) further comprises introducing coefficients K₁,K₂, .. . , K_(n), wherein the coefficient K_(i), i=1, . . . n indicates therelative strength of the contribution of the i-th patent index into thePQ.
 22. A method as described in claim 13, wherein the step (b)comprises combining the patent indices x₁, x₂, . . . , x_(n) into the PQaccording to the following expression${\frac{1}{PQ} = {{K_{1} \cdot \frac{1}{x_{1}}} + {K_{2} \cdot \frac{1}{x_{2}}} + \ldots + {K_{n} \cdot \frac{1}{x_{n}}}}},$wherein K_(i), i=1, . . . n is a coefficient indicating the relativestrength of the contribution of the i-th patent index into the PQ, andK₁+K₂+ . . . +K_(n)=1.
 23. A method as described in claim 1, wherein thestep (b) comprises selecting said non-linear function from a family ofnon-linear functions determined by a parameter of non-linearity, whereineach function in the family corresponds to the unique value of theparameter of non-linearity.
 24. A method as described in claim 14,wherein the step (b) comprises selecting said non-linear function from afamily of non-linear functions determined by a parameter ofnon-linearity, wherein each function in the family corresponds to theunique value of the parameter of non-linearity.
 25. A method asdescribed in claim 23, wherein of step (b) comprises selecting thenon-linear function from the following family of non-linear functionsdetermined by the parameter of non-linearity b:${{PQ} = \frac{1}{1 - b + {b \cdot \left( {\frac{K_{1}}{x_{1}} + \frac{K_{2}}{x_{2}} + \ldots + \frac{K_{n}}{x_{n}}} \right)}}},$wherein x₁, x₂, . . . , x_(n) are patent indices, and K_(i), i=1, . . .n is a coefficient indicating the relative strength of the contributionof the i-th patent index into the PQ, K₁+K₂+ . . . +K_(n)=1.
 26. Amethod as described in claim 1, further comprising determining amonetary value of the patent document as a product of the PQ and amonetary value of an Etalon Patent (EP) under current market conditions,the EP being a patent devoted to the same problem as the patentdocument, although possibly providing a different solution, andcharacterized with the same set of patent indices, all of the patentindices of the EP being equal to their maximal values.
 27. A method asdescribed in claim 1, further comprising the step of analyzing values ofthe patent indices by an Artificial Intelligence (AI) system, includinggenerating a conclusion regarding the value of the patent document basedon the performed analysis.
 28. A method as described in claim 27,wherein the step of generating further comprises generating a reasonassociated with the generated conclusion.
 29. A method as described inclaim 28, further comprising the step of displaying one of the followingto a user: the generated conclusion; and the generated conclusion andthe associated reason.
 30. A method as described in claim 27, whereinthe step of analyzing comprises analyzing the values of the patentindices by the AI system, which is a decision tree based AI system. 31.A method as described in claim 1, wherein the step (a) comprisesintroducing one or more patent indices from the following set of patentindices, characterizing Technical Merit, Commercial Value, LegalStrength, Inventive Merit, and Utility.
 32. A method as described inclaim 2, wherein the step of introducing a hierarchy of patent indicescomprises introducing one or more of the following sub-indicescharactering a patent index of Technical Merit: Degree of technicalimportance to business; Difficulty of manufacturing; Degree of technicalsolution of a problem; Difficulty of designing around; and Number ofexisting alternative solutions.
 33. A method as described in claim 2,wherein the step of introducing a hierarchy of patent indices comprisesintroducing one or more of the following sub-indices charactering apatent index of Inventive Merit: Invention scale; Degree of the solutionof the problem; Uniqueness of the invention; Degree of Novelty;Originality of the solution; and Technical effectiveness of the proposedsolution.
 34. A method as described in claim 2, wherein the step ofintroducing a hierarchy of patent indices comprises introducing one ormore of the following sub-indices charactering a patent index ofCommercial Value: Life cycle stage of the patent document; Size of themarket to serve; Required investment; and Scalability for VolumeProduction.
 35. A method as described in claim 2, wherein the step ofintroducing a hierarchy of patent indices comprises introducing one ormore of the following sub-indices charactering the patent index of LegalStrength: Scope of claims; Infringement detectability; Chances ofinfringing third party patents; Chances of invalidity of the patentdocument; and Easiness to design around the proposed solution.
 36. Asystem for evaluating a patent document, comprising: a data input meansfor receiving an input data with regard to one or more patent indices,characterizing different aspects of the patent document; and a PatentQuality processing unit for processing the input data into an outputdata as a non-linear function of said patent indices, which ismonotonous, continuous and bounded on the interval of variation ofpatent indices, the output data comprising a Patent Quality (PQ) indexcharacterizing the value of the patent document.
 37. A system asdescribed in claim 36, further comprising a graphical user interface fordisplaying one of the output data, and the input and output data to auser.
 38. A system as described in claim 36, wherein the graphical userinterface comprises a computer readable program code stored in acomputer memory, which when executed, provides a graphical means forentering and displaying the input data, and a graphical means fordisplaying the output data.
 39. A system as described in claim 38,wherein the graphical means comprise a slider, having a linear scale, asliding object movable along the linear scale, and a counter associatedwith the linear scale and showing the current position of the slidingobject on the linear scale.
 40. A system as described in claim 36,wherein the means for processing comprises a means for processing theinput data into the output data as the non-linear function of the patentindices, which satisfies the following rule: (i) for any patent index,higher values of the Patent Quality correspond to higher values of saidpatent index.
 41. A system as described in claim 40, wherein the meansfor processing further comprises a means for processing the input datainto the output data as the non-linear function of the patent indices,which satisfies the following rule: (ii) when values for all patentindices tend to the substantially same value of “p”, then the PatentQuality would tend substantially to the value calculated as if thePatent Quality depended solely upon a single index whose value is equalto “p”.
 42. A system as described in claim 40, wherein the means forprocessing comprises a means for processing the input data into theoutput data as the non-linear function of the patent indices, 25 whichsatisfies the following rule: (iii) when a value of any patent indextends substantially to its minimal value, then Patent Quality value alsotends substantially to its minimal value; and wherein the patent indiceshave been chosen so that to satisfy the rule (iii).
 43. A system asdescribed in claim 41, wherein the means for processing comprises ameans for processing the input data into the output data as thenon-linear function of the patent indices, which satisfies the followingrule: (iii) when a value of any patent index tends substantially to itsminimal value, then Patent Quality value also tends substantially to itsminimal value; and wherein the patent indices have been chosen so thatto satisfy the rule (iii).
 44. A system as described in claim 36,wherein the means for processing comprises a means for processing theinput data into the output data as the decreasing non-linear function ofthe patent indices, which satisfies the following rule: (iii) when avalue of any patent index tends substantially to its minimal value, thenPatent Quality value tends substantially to its maximal value; andwherein the patent indices have been chosen so that to satisfy the rule(iii).
 45. A system as described in claim 36, wherein the PQ processingunit further comprises a means for determining a monetary value of thepatent document as a product of the PQ and a monetary value of an EtalonPatent (EP) under current market conditions, the EP being a patentdevoted to the same problem as the patent document, although possiblyproviding a different solution, and characterized with the same set ofpatent indices, all of the patent indices of the EP being equal to theirmaximal values.
 46. A system as described in claim 45, furthercomprising means for storing the input and processed data in a databaseor for sending said data over a network.
 47. A system as described inclaim 45, the system being implemented to be accessible via a corporateIntranet or the Internet.
 48. A system as described in claim 36, furthercomprising an Artificial Intelligence (AI) Unit, comprising an AI systemfor analyzing the input data and generating a conclusion regarding thevalue of the patent document based on the performed analysis.
 49. Asystem as described in claim 36, wherein the AI system is a decisiontree base AI.
 50. A computer readable memory having recorded thereonstatements and instructions for execution by a computer to carry out theprocessing of a number of patent indices, characterizing differentaspects of the patent document, into a Patent Quality index (the PQ), asdescribed in the method of claim
 1. 51. A computer readable memory asdescribed in claim 50, wherein said statements and instructionscomprises statements and instructions for processing the patent indicesinto the PQ according to the increasing non-linear function, whichsatisfies the following rule: if any of the patent indices tendssubstantially to its minimal value, then the PQ also tends substantiallyto its minimal value; and wherein the patent indices are chosen so thatto satisfy said rule.
 52. A computer program product, comprising amemory having computer readable code embodied therein, for execution bya CPU, to carry out the processing of a number of patent indices,characterizing different aspects of the patent document into a PatentQuality index (the PQ), which characterizes value of the patentdocument, as described in the method of claim
 1. 53. A computer programproduct as described in claim 52, wherein the processing of the patentindices into the PQ is performed according to the non-linear function,which is continuous, monotonous, increasing, and bounded function on theinterval of variation of the patent indices and satisfies the followingrule: if any of the patent indices tends substantially to its minimalvalue, then the PQ also tends substantially to its minimal value; andwherein the patent indices have been chosen so that to satisfy saidrule.
 54. A carrier wave embodying a computer data signal, representingsequences of statements and instructions, which when executed by aprocessor cause the processor to determine a Patent Quality index of apatent document, which characterizes value of the patent document, asdescribed in the method of claim
 1. 55. A system for evaluating a patentdocument, comprising: s a computer; a web site for receiving an inputdata with regard to a number of patent indices, characterizing differentaspects of the patent document; and a program executing on said computerfor determining a Patent Quality index (the PQ), which characterizesvalue of the patent document, as a as a non-linear function of patentindices, which is continuous monotonous and bounded on the interval ofvariation of the patent indices.
 56. A system as described in claim 55,further comprising a program executing on said computer for analyzingthe input data by an Artificial Intelligence system, includinggenerating a conclusion regarding the value of the patent document basedon the performed analysis.
 57. A system as described in claim 55,wherein the program further provides a graphical user interface, havinga computer readable program code stored in a computer memory, which whenexecuted, provides graphical means for entering and displaying the inputdata, and graphical means for displaying the output data.
 58. A systemas described in claim 57, wherein the graphical means comprise a slider,having a linear scale, a sliding object movable along the linear scale,and a counter associated with the linear scale and showing the currentposition of the sliding object on the linear scale.
 59. A system asdescribed in claim 55, wherein the program executing on said computerfurther determines a monetary value of the patent document as a productof the PQ and a monetary value of an Etalon Patent (EP) under currentmarket conditions, the EP being a patent devoted to the same problem asthe patent document, although possibly providing a different solution,and characterized with the same set of patent indices, all of the patentindices of the EP being equal to their maximal values.
 60. A system asdescribed in claim 55, wherein the program executing on said computerdetermines the Patent Quality index as an increasing function of itspatent indices, which satisfies the following rule: if value of any ofthe patent indices tends substantially to its minimal, then the PQ valuealso tends substantially to its minimal value; and wherein the patentindices have been chosen so that to satisfy said rule.
 61. A system asdescribed in claim 59, further comprising means for sending results ofthe program execution over a network, or for storing said results in adatabase.
 62. A web site for evaluating a patent document, comprising: alink on the web site causing a computer program code associated with theweb-site and stored in a computer memory to be executed so as to providea data input means for receiving an input data with regard to a numberof patent indices, characterizing different aspects of the patentdocument, and to perform calculations of a Patent Quality index (thePQ), which characterizes value of the patent document, as a non-linearfunction of patent indices, which is continuous monotonous and boundedon the interval of variation of the patent indices.
 63. A web site asdescribed in claim 62, wherein the computer program code is executed soas to further determine a monetary value of the patent document as aproduct of the PQ and a monetary value of a Etalon Patent (EP) undercurrent market conditions, the EP being a patent devoted to the sameproblem as the patent document, although possibly providing a differentsolution, and characterized with the same set of patent indices, all ofthe patent indices of the EP being equal to their maximal values.
 64. Aweb site as described in claim 63, wherein said computer program codefurther provides a graphical user interface, comprising means forentering and displaying the input data, and means for an output data ona computer screen.
 65. A web site as described in claim 64, wherein themeans for entering and displaying comprise a slider, having a linearscale, a sliding object movable along the linear scale, and a counterassociated with the linear scale and showing the current position of thesliding object on the linear scale.
 66. A web site as described in claim62, wherein the calculations of the PQ are performed according to thenon-linear function, which is increasing and satisfies the followingrule: if value of any of the patent indices tends substantially to itsminimal, then the PQ value also tends substantially to its minimalvalue; and wherein the patent indices have been chosen so that tosatisfy said rule.
 67. A web site as described in claim 66, wherein thecalculations of the PQ are performed according to the non-linearfunction, which further satisfies another rule: when values for allpatent indices tend to the substantially same value of “p”, then thePatent Quality would tend substantially to the value calculated as ifthe Patent Quality depended solely upon a single index whose value isequal to “p”.
 68. A web site as described in claim 62, wherein thecomputer program is further executed so as to perform the analysis ofthe input data by an AI system, including generation of a conclusionregarding the value of the patent document based on the performedanalysis.
 69. A method as described in claim 1, further comprising thestep of visualizing the value of the patent document by using a colorcoding of the patent document based on the value of the PQ index.
 70. Amethod as described in claim 69, wherein the step of visualizingcomprises providing a correspondence between the value of the PQ indexof the patent document and the wavelength of a selected color of avisible part of the light spectrum.
 71. A method as described in claim70, wherein the step of providing correspondence comprises providingcorrespondence between the value of the PQ index PQ₀ and the wavelengthof the selected color λ₀ as follows:${\lambda_{0} = {\lambda_{\min} + {\frac{\lambda_{\max} - \lambda_{\min}}{{PQ}_{\max} - {PQ}_{\min}} \cdot \left( {{PQ}_{0} - {PQ}_{\min}} \right)}}},$wherein [PQ_(min), PQ_(max)] is a range of variation of the PQ index,and [λ_(min), λ_(max)] is a wavelength range of the visible part of thelight spectrum.
 72. A method as described in claim 69, wherein the step(a) comprises introducing one, two or three patent indices.
 73. A methodas described in claim 72, wherein the step (c) comprises visualizing thevalue of the patent document (the PQ index) as a color point in a systemof coordinates with the number of axes being equal to the number ofpatent indices, the coordinates of the color point being equal to thevalues of the patent indices, and the color of the color point being inaccordance with the value of the PQ index of the patent document.
 74. Acomputer database stored in a computer memory, comprising patentevaluations of patent documents, each patent valuation being performedin accordance with the method of claim 1.